Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV00989, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00989, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to Amend Complaint the Cause of Action for General Negligence

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is a premises liability action. On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff Gabriela Moreno (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Executive Law Property Group LLC (Executive Law), Mukhtair Kundi, M.D., The Neurology Group, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint to amend complaint [sic] the cause of action for general negligence. The motion is unopposed.[1]

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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).)

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) to amend the cause of action for general negligence. Plaintiff seeks to do so on the grounds that she recently retained new legal representation, who thereafter found the operative complaint to lack sufficient detail describing the facts in support of Plaintiff’s general negligence claim and premises liability claim. Plaintiff contends the amendment is necessary and proper to address this issue, that the amendment was not made earlier since Plaintiff’s new counsel was just retained on September 6, 2023, that the factual allegations are meritorious, and that granting the motion will be in the interests of justice. Plaintiff further contends there is ample legal authority for adding these allegations. The Court agrees.

Leave to amend is liberally granted. (Kittredge Sports Co, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1047.) This action was only filed approximately six months ago and Plaintiff’s new counsel was retained just a couple months ago. The Court finds no prejudice in permitting amendment at this stage of the litigation, especially in light of Defendants’ lack of opposition to this motion for leave to amend. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.)

The Court does note that Plaintiff’s motion does not specifically identify by page, line, and paragraph number the allegations proposed to be deleted or added, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a)), but since the pleadings are Judicial Council forms, this is not as much of a concern here. The Court nevertheless admonishes Plaintiff to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court going forward. The Court otherwise finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice on October 25, 2023 as to Defendant Executive Law, but that the proposed First Amended Complaint still has Executive Law named as a defendant.