Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV30181, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30181    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff Edward Casillas (“Casillas”) filed this action against Defendants Joseph Sandoval, Globe Life Insurance Agency, Inc., Globe Life Liberty National Division, Liberty National Life Insurance Company, and Does 1-100 for general negligence and violation of statute. 

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of Casillas’s death. 

On June 10, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Theresa Casillas (“Plaintiff”) for Casillas as his successor-in-interest. 

On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.  The motion was set for hearing on January 15, 2025.  No opposition has been filed.  The Court continued the hearing to March 5, 2025. 

Trial is currently set for June 9, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to file a first amended 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.   Plaintiff’s complaint 

The complaint includes the following allegations: 

On or about September 12, 2023, Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Defendants.  Defendants negligently, carelessly, recklessly, wantonly, and unlawfully drove, operated, maintained, conducted, owned, controlled and entrusted the vehicle, causing it to collide with a Subaru vehicle on the freeway.  Defendants failed to drive at a speed that was safe for the surrounding conditions in violation of Vehicle Code section 22350.  As a result of the collision and Defendants’ violation of the Vehicle Code, Plaintiff was injured and his personal property was damaged. 

B.   Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint 

Plaintiff asks for leave to file an amended complaint that adds Theresa Casillas as a named Plaintiff, replaces Globe Life Liberty National Division with Green Financial LLC as a named Defendant, adds claims for wrongful death and survival action, and makes related changes. 

The Court has no received information suggesting that the amendments will prejudice Defendants.  The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Theresa Casillas’s motion to file a first amended complaint.   The Court orders Plaintiff Theresa Casillas to file and serve a first amended complaint within 15 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.