Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV30920, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30920    Hearing Date: November 9, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff Pedro Reyes Franco (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Perry Motors (“Perry Motors”), Jose Alberto Martinez (“Martinez”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On October 7, 2022, Perry Motors filed an answer.  On December 7, 2022, Martinez filed an answer. 

On September 26, 2023, Martinez filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to be heard on November 9, 2023.  On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.  On November 2, 2023, Martinez filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Martinez requests leave to file and serve an amended answer. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court deny 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.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   The complaint 

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: 

On August 5, 2022, on the CA-14 Freeway near Placerita Canyon Road in Santa Clarita, California, Defendants’ vehicle struck Plaintiff, who was riding a motorcycle.  Defendants’ negligence in operating, managing, and driving their vehicle caused Plaintiff to suffer serious personal injuries and property damage. 

B.   Martinez’s answer 

Martinez’s December 7, 2022 answer denies Plaintiff’s allegations and asserts fourteen affirmative defenses. 

C.   Martinez’s motion for leave to file an amended answer 

Martinez seeks leave to amend his answer to include the sudden emergency doctrine as an affirmative defense.  “Under the ‘sudden emergency’ or ‘imminent peril’ doctrine, ‘a person who, without negligence on his part, is suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with peril, arising from either the actual presence, or the appearance, of imminent danger to himself or to others, is not expected [or] required to use the same judgment and prudence that is required of him in the exercise of ordinary care in calmer and more deliberate moments.’ ” (Abdulkadhim v. Wu (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 298, 301-302, quoting Leo v. Dunham (1953) 41 Cal.2d 712, 714.)  "An emergency or peril under the sudden emergency or imminent peril doctrine is a set of facts presented to the person alleged to have been negligent. It is that actor's behavior that the doctrine excuses.”  (Id. at p. 302, original emphasis.) 

According to Martinez, the affirmative defense is based on deposition testimony given on August 9, 2023 by investigating officer Eliud Tapia.  Officer Tapia, reading from his report, testified as follows: 

“Both parties [Martinez and Plaintiff] were driving their respective vehicles on northbound 14, south of Placerita Canyon Road.  [Martinez] was driving Vehicle 1 in the Number 1 lane at approximately 70 miles per hour, ahead of [Plaintiff]. [Plaintiff] was riding Vehicle 2 between the HOV lane and Number 1 lane at an unknown speed. Traffic ahead of [Martinez] came to a stop. [Martinez] made a brake application to Vehicle 1 and turned Vehicle 1 to the left to change lanes into the carpool lane or HOV lane. Due to [Martinez’s] unsafe lane change and an associated factor caused by his unsafe speed, [Martinez’s vehicle] crossed a set of double yellow lines with Vehicle 1 in the direct path of [Plaintiff’s vehicle]. [Martinez’s] unsafe lane change did not allow [Plaintiff] to make an evasive movement or braking application to prevent colliding into the rear of [Martinez’s vehicle]. As a result, [Plaintiff’s vehicle] rear-ended the back of [Martinez’s vehicle]. After the crash, [Martinez] drove Vehicle 1 to the median and [Plaintiff] walked to the median and an unknown party moved Vehicle 2 to the median prior to CHP arrival.” 

Martinez argues that the stopping of traffic in front of his vehicle created a sudden emergency which excused his allegedly negligent conduct. 

D.   Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion 

Plaintiff contends that Martinez has failed to show the stopped traffic amounted to a sudden emergency.  Plaintiff also argues that Mendoza cannot claim the protection of the sudden emergency doctrine because his own negligence triggered the alleged emergency.  In addition, Plaintiff argues that Mendoza’s motion is untimely because he has known about the facts giving rise to a sudden emergency affirmative defense since February 2, 2023, when his counsel received the traffic collision report which Officer Tapia read from at his deposition.  Finally, Plaintiff argues that allowing Mendoza to amend his answer would prejudice Plaintiff by increasing the amount of discovery he must conduct and requiring Plaintiff to file a demurrer and possibly a summary judgment motion to challenge the sudden emergency affirmative defense. 

E.   Analysis 

“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.)  Here, Plaintiff's contention that the proposed affirmative defense is meritless because no sudden emergency existed and because Martinez’s own negligence triggered the alleged emergency does not require denial of leave to amend the answer. 

Even if, as Plaintiff argues, Martinez unreasonably delayed moving to amend, “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.)  Plaintiff has not asserted or shown that allowing the amendment will delay the trial.   

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jose Alberto Martinez’s motion for leave to file an amended answer.  Defendant Jose Alberto Martinez is ordered to file and serve the amended answer within 10 days of the hearing on the motion. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.