Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV38781, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV38781 Hearing Date: April 5, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff Daniel Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Simon Jihoon Sohng (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On July 3, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to be heard on April 5, 2024. On February 16, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 11, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests leave to file and serve a first amended complaint.
Defendant
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.)
“[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).)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint alleges that on December 16, 2020, at or near the intersection of Laveta Terrace and West Temple Street in Los Angeles, Defendant negligently operated a motor vehicle, injuring Plaintiff. Defendant allegedly “violated various Vehicle Code sections, including but not limited to, California Vehicle Code sections 21453(a), 21532(a), and 22350 in causing this incident and injuries and damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be proved at trial.”
The complaint sought compensatory damages.
B. Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint
Plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint (1) to allege that Defendant was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (f), which makes it unlawful to drive a vehicle while under the influence of a drug, and (2) to assert a claim for punitive damages. According to Plaintiff, the conviction shows that Defendant acted with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety, supporting the request for punitive damages.
The proposed amended complaint also pleads detailed facts about the accident and surrounding circumstances that are not contained in Plaintiff’s original form complaint.
C. Defendant’s opposition to the motion
Defendant argues that Plaintiff knew at least as early as September 2023 that Defendant had been convicted of driving under the influence of a drug but did not move to file an amended complaint until January 2024. Based on this delay, Defendant argues, the Court should deny the motion. Defendant also argues the motion is procedurally defective, Plaintiff cannot plead a viable claim for punitive damages, and granting the motion will prejudice Defendant.
D. Ruling
Even if Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in filing his motion 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, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 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.)
Defendant asserts that allowing the amendments will prejudice him. He argues that (1) he will be financially prejudiced by having to file a motion to strike the references to punitive damages and other “irrelevant factual allegations” from the amended complaint and (2) the addition of a claim for punitive damages will make the litigation more complex and open up a new area of financial discovery.
The Court concludes that the added costs of preparation which Defendant describes do not, by themselves, constitute prejudice requiring the Court to deny the motion – particularly where, as here, the proposed amendments do not change the basic theory of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff continues to allege that Defendant negligently operated his vehicle, injuring Plaintiff.
The Court “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.)
Last, Plaintiff’s motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Counsel’s supporting declaration provides the information required by subdivision (b) of the rule.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Daniel Chavez's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.
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.