Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02145, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02145    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Vincent Scigliano v. Quinn Company, et al. 

Defendant Quinn Company’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Quinn Company’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer. Quinn Company must file and serve the proposed First Amended Answer within five calendar days of this order. 

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

BACKGROUND 

This is a products liability case. On July 2, 2024, plaintiff Vincent Scigliano (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Quinn Company (Defendant) and Does I through XX, alleging causes of action for strict product liability, express & implied warranty, and negligence – product liability. 

On March 25, 2025, Defendant moved for leave to file a First Amended Answer. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, “[t]he 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).) The court’s 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 (Kittredge Sports).) 

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).) 

DISCUSSION 

Summary of Arguments 

Defendant seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer to add the affirmative defense provided in Vehicle Code section 17151, which limits liability for the owner of a vehicle to $15,000.00. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be well aware of this limitation since it is well known law, and Plaintiff therefore cannot claim surprise or prejudice. Defendant contends that it may be severely prejudiced if it is unable to assert this affirmative defense. Defendant also notes that no trial date is set. 

Analysis           

            The Court finds Defendant’s motion sufficiently satisfies the requirements of Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) Defendant explained the effect of the proposed amendment and attached a copy of the proposed First Amended Answer. (Motion, pp. 1-2; Kwong Decl., Ex. C.) The Court further construes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition as a concession that Plaintiff does not have any objections to the proposed First Amended Answer. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion. However, the Court is not ruling on the validity of the proposed amendment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Quinn Company’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer. Quinn Company must file and serve the proposed First Amended Answer within five calendar days of this order. 

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