Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV35045, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35045 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff Vonda Washington (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles (“the City”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On
December 12, 2022, the City filed an answer.
On
May 3, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint include Defendant Mega 26 Management,
a limited liability company, as Doe 1. On June 5 and June 27, 2023, the Court
dismissed Defendant Mega 26 Management with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Letha Jones as Doe 2 (“Jones”).
On July 5, 2023, Jones, representing herself, filed an answer.
On January 2, 2024, Jones filed a substitution of attorney form substituting counsel into the case to represent her.
On April 30, 2024, the Court granted Jones’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint and denied without prejudice Jones’s motion for leave to amend her answer.
On May 7, 2024, Jones filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants City, Doe 1, and Does 3-50 for indemnification and apportionment of fault. On June 10, 2024, the City filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On June 26, 2024, Jones filed another motion for leave to file an amended answer. The motion was set for hearing on August 12, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Meliba Bell as Doe 3.
Trial is scheduled for December 9, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Jones
ask the Court for leave to file a first amended answer that includes
affirmative defenses that Jones’s original answer did not contain.
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
The complaint alleges the following:
On or about November 10, 2021, as a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff fell on a deteriorated and uneven portion of a sidewalk, a dangerous condition on Defendants' property, causing injuries and damages. Plaintiff tripped and fell on an uneven and displaced portion of the sidewalk and suffered serious injuries as a direct consequence. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries and incurred damages as a direct result of Defendants’ negligence in maintaining, inspecting, repairing, managing, supervising, controlling and/or operating the premises located in front of, at or near 6023 8th Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90043 (“premises”); including but not limited to, fixtures and appliances, sidewalks and pathways, entrance and exit ways, surrounding parking lots and alleys, aisles, floors, stairs, steps, gates and any other surfaces and areas upon which individuals may move about; negligently hiring, training, supervising, controlling and/or monitoring employees and agents responsible for the maintenance, inspections, repairing, supervision, control and operations; failing to provide a safe, suitable and adequate premises for individuals using the premises. Defendants also failed to warn Plaintiff of the risks and dangers of which Defendants knew, or in the existence of reasonable care should have known existed, and which were unknown and not readily apparent to Plaintiff. Defendants' failure to warn was a direct legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk on 8th Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90043, when she fell as a result of a deteriorated and uneven portion of the sidewalk, repaired, inspected and/or maintained by Defendants' agents in a negligent fashion. The negligence of Defendants' employees/agents resulted in Plaintiff tripping on the uneven and displaced portion of the sidewalk and Plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a direct consequence. Defendants are responsible for their failure to provide a safe, suitable and adequate premises. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the hazardous, dangerous condition was caused by Defendants and/or existed for a sufficient time prior to the incident for Defendants to have corrected, removed, and/or warned Plaintiff of the existence of the dangerous conditions, which Defendants negligently and carelessly failed to do, causing serious injuries to Plaintiff. Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
But for Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff would not have been injured and damaged. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under, among other statutes, Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, 820 and 835.
Jones’s answer filed on July 5, 2023 denies the complaint’s allegations and asserts affirmative defenses.
C. Motion to amend answer
Jones asks to amend her answer by revising both the general denial and the affirmative defenses. Jones asks to replace the affirmative defenses asserted in her original answer with the following affirmative defenses:
(1)
Failure to state a claim;
(2)
Comparative negligence of Plaintiff;
(3)
Negligence of other parties, e.g., the City of Los Angeles;
(4)
The right to offset, apportionment, and/or indemnity;
(5)
Assumption of risk by Plaintiff;
(6)
Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages;
(7)
Defendants’ reasonable exercise of ordinary due care;
(8)
Misjoinder and/or nonjoinder of parties;
(9)
No duty by Defendant over the subject premises;
(10)
No notice to Defendant of any defect in the subject premises; and
(11) Reasonable condition of the premises.
Jones's motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion, suggesting that Plaintiff does not expect to be prejudiced by the amendment of Jones’s answer.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Letha Jones’s motion for leave to file an amended answer.
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.