Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV27492, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                                       Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.  This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.    
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 23STCV27492    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 8, 2023, Plaintiffs Elida Padilla and Maria Estella Garay de Chamul filed this action against Defendants Manuel Andrade (“Andrade”) and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On December 26, 2023, Andrade filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Jose Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) and Roes 1-100 for implied indemnity aka equitable indemnity, partial indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. 

On April 9, 2024, the clerk entered Rodriguez’s default on the cross-complaint. 

On September 25, 2024, Rodriguez filed an answer to the cross-complaint. 

On October 23, 2024, the Court granted the stipulated request of Andrade and Rodriguez to set aside Rodriguez’s default on the cross-complaint.  The Court set aside the default and ordered Rodriguez to file an answer within 10 days. 

On December 26, 2024, Rodriguez filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer.  The motion was set for hearing on January 21, 2025.  No opposition has been filed.  The Court continued the hearing to February 6, 2025. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 7, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Rodriguez asks for leave to file a first amended answer. 

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 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.) 

DISCUSSION 

          The clerk entered Rodriguez’s default on April 9, 2024.  On September 25, 2024, while Rodriguez was still in default, he filed an answer.  The Court did not set aside the default until October 23, 2024.  “Entry of defendant’s default instantaneously cuts off its right to appear in the action.  The defendant is ‘out of court.’  It has no right to participate in the proceedings until either (a) its default is set aside (in which event, it may respond to the complaint), or (b) a default judgment is entered (in which event, it may appeal).”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:6, p. 5-2.) 

          Because Rodriguez attempted to file an answer while he was in default, the answer is ineffective.  Accordingly, when the Court set aside Rodriguez’s default on October 23, 2024, the Court ordered Rodriguez to file an answer within 10 days.  Rodriguez did not comply with this order.  Nonetheless, as Rodriguez currently has no valid answer on file, he is not required to obtain leave of court to file an amended answer. 

          The Court denies Rodriguez’s motion and order Rodriguez to file an answer within 5 days. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Cross-Defendant Jose Rodriguez’s motion for leave to file an amended answer to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Manuel Andrade’s cross-complaint. 

The Court ORDERS Cross-Defendant Jose Rodriguez to file an answer to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Manuel Andrade’s cross-complaint within five days. 

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.