Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV15243, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV15243 Hearing Date: June 24, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff Susana Munoz, guardian ad litem for Victor Daniel Garcia (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Defendants Wendy Hormann, Micah Hormann, and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On May 20, 2022, the Court appointed Susana Munoz to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff.
On January 6, 2023, Defendants Wendy Hormann and Micah Hormann (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On May 3, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer to be heard on June 24, 2024. On June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 1, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants request leave to file an amended answer.
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)
“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)
“ ‘While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. [Citations.] And it is a rare case in which “a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” [Citations.] If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]’” (Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1031, quoting Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
“Courts usually display great liberality in allowing amendments to answers because ‘a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.’” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 6:643, p. 6-189 (Cal. Practice Guide), quoting Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)
“Ordinarily, the judge will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. . . . After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:644, pp. 6-189 to 6-190.)
In
addition, “it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the
opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge
Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would
result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs
of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:656,
p. 6-193.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 7, 2021, at Caraway Lane and Grovepark Drive in Santa Clarita, California 91350, Defendants negligently, carelessly, and unlawfully drove, operated, entrusted, and maintained their vehicle, causing a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle and injuring Plaintiff.
Defendants’ answer filed on January 6, 2023 denies the complaint’s allegations and asserts affirmative defenses.
C. Motion to amend answer
Defendants ask to amend their answer to add affirmative defenses based on Proposition 213:
“TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proposition 213)
“20. Plaintiff’s prayer for non-economic damages, including but not limited to pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages, if any, is barred by the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, Civil Code §333.4 [sic], because Plaintiff was the owner of a vehicle involved in the subject accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of the State of California.
“TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proposition 213)
“21. Plaintiff’s damages as to defendants are limited to those allowable under the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 17151(a).”
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, suggesting that Plaintiff has not been misled and does not expect to be prejudiced by the addition of these affirmative defenses more than four months before trial.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file an amended answer filed by Defendants Wendy Hormann and Micah Hormann.
Defendants Wendy Hormann and Micah Hormann are ordered to file and serve the first amended answer to the complaint within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.