Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV33353, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33353    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

A.   Prior proceedings 

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff Oliver Wang (“Wang”) filed this action against Defendants Brigitta Tuyet Nguyen (“Brigitta Nguyen”) and Does 1-25 for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

On April 4, 2023, Brigitta Nguyen filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Wang, Anhtuan Nguyen, Jamison Services, Inc. (“Jameson”), and Roes 1-10 for civil assault, civil battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, premises liability and negligence, conversion, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.  On April 21, 2023, Wang filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On July 14, 2023, the Court dismissed Jameson from Brigitta Nguyen’s cross-complaint without prejudice at Brigitta Nguyen’s request. On July 14, 2023, Brigitta Nguyen withdrew her punitive damage claim against Jameson.  On December 11, 2024, Brigitta Nguyen amended her cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant Peter Nguyen as Roe 1 (“Peter Nguyen”). 

On June 21, 2023, Cross-Defendant Ahn Tuan Nguyen (“Ahn Nguyen”) filed an answer to Brigitta Nguyen’s cross-complaint.  On July 12, 2023, Ahn Nguyen filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Brigitta Nguyen and Roes 1-10 for assault and battery, conspiracy to commit assault and battery, mayhem, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  On July 14, 2023, Brigitta Nguyen filed an answer to Ahn Nguyen’s cross-complaint. 

Trial is currently set for March 12, 2025. 

B.   This motion 

On December 26, 2024, Brigitta Nguyen filed a motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint.  The motion was set for hearing on January 22, 2025.  On January 13, 2025, Brigitta Nguyen filed a notice of non-opposition.  

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Brigitta Nguyen asks the Court for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint. 

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.) 

“[I]t 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 (Kittredge).)  “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.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 6:656, p. 6-193 (Cal. Practice Guide).) 

“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.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   Wang’s complaint 

Wang’s complaint alleges that on or about July 30, 2022, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Brigitta Nguyen and Does 1-25 stabbed Wang in his right-side rib cage, lacerating his liver. 

B.   Brigitta Nguyen’s cross-complaint 

Brigitta Nguyen’s cross-complaint filed April 4, 2023, alleges that Brigitta Nguyen defended herself using a knife after Wang, Ahn Nguyen, and an unknown defendant screamed and banged on the door of an apartment where Brigitta Nguyen was staying with acquaintances, barged into the apartment, advanced on Brigitta Nguyen while shouting, and attacked Brigitta Nguyen. 

C.   Brigitta Nguyen’s motion to file a first amended cross-complaint 

Brigitta Nguyen asks the Court for leave to amend her cross-complaint to allege that Peter Nguyen owned or leased the premises where Brigitta Nguyen allegedly was attacked.  The amended cross-complaint also would provide additional details about the events leading up to and including the alleged attack. 

The Court finds that the amendments are based on the same alleged facts giving rise to Wang’s complaint and Brigitta Nguyen’s cross-complaint and that the amendments will not prejudice the other parties.  The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Brigitta Tuyet Nguyen’s motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint.   The Court orders Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Brigitta Tuyet Nguyen to file and serve a first amended cross-complaint within 10 days of the hearing on this 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.