Judge Lisa R. Jaskol, Case Number: 22STCV34138, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff Kamal Rashad Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Jonathan Valdez-Perez as Doe 1 (“Valdez-Perez”). On August 16, 2024, Valdez-Perez filed an answer.

On August 9, 2024, Metro filed a motion for leave to file a first amended answer. The motion was set for hearing on September 17, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

“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 2024) ¶ 6:643, p. 6-192 (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, p. 6-192.)

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. 6-195.)

“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), in any action to recover damages arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, a person shall not recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages if any of the following applies:

“(1) The injured person was at the time of the accident operating the vehicle in violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and was convicted of that offense.

“(2) The injured person was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.

“(3) The injured person was the operator of a vehicle involved in the accident and the operator can not establish his or her financial responsibility as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.

“(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), an insurer shall not be liable, directly or indirectly, under a policy of liability or uninsured motorist insurance to indemnify for non-economic losses of a person injured as described in subdivision (a).

“(c) In the event a person described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) was injured by a motorist who at the time of the accident was operating his or her vehicle in violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and was convicted of that offense, the injured person shall not be barred from recovering non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages.”

A. The complaint

The complaint alleges that on December 27, 2021, Defendants negligently, carelessly, and unlawfully drove, operated, entrusted, and maintained their vehicle, causing it to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle, injuring Plaintiff and damaging Plaintiff’s property.

Metro asks for leave to file an amended answer raising an affirmative defense based on Civil Code section 3333.4. Metro asserts that it did not previously include this affirmative defense in its answer because it only recently discovered that Plaintiff was uninsured at the time of the accident on which the complaint is based. Metro has submitted a proposed first amended answer.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. The Court is not aware of any prejudice that will result from granting Metro’s motion. The Court grants the motion.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for leave to file an amended answer. The Court orders Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to file and serve a first amended answer within 10 days of the hearing on this motion.

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