Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV11929, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV11929, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11929 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 30

ARMENUHI AHARONYAN vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file the proposed amended answer attached as Exhibit B to the motion within 10 days of this order. Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

California 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.”¿

“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.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿¿(See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿

“ ‘[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.’ (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 759-761.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Under¿California Rules of Court¿Rule 3.1324(a), 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.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿Rule 3.1324(b), 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.¿

Discussion

Defendants seek a court order permitting them to file an Amended Answer to allege the immunity provided under Government Code section 830.2, relating to trivial conditions. Defendants argue that discovery and investigation reveal that Plaintiff’s alleged incident may have been caused by a small differential in height of a fire service vault causing misalignment with the adjoining sidewalk.

Defendants have generally complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed Amended Answer. (Kwon Decl., Ex. B.) Defendant also explains that it discovered additional facts regarding the sidewalk at issue during discovery. This is sufficient to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why it was not made earlier.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues she provided photographs and measurements from the WEXCO inspection of September 15, 2022, via verified discovery responses, almost a year and a half ago, yet Defendants’ motion claims, with no factual basis, no evidence and no reasoning, as to how they just now, in January of 2024, determined that the dangerous condition may only be a “small differential.” Further, DWP repaired the condition in May of 2022, almost two years ago, it is highly probable that the condition is no longer the same as it was back when the incident occurred. Measurements taken after “re-decking” the dangerous condition would not apply to the actual condition and height differential as to when the incident occurred and should not be used for purposes of this Motion, nor a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues unwarranted delay in seeking amendment is proper grounds for refusing leave to amend.

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that delay alone will justify denying leave to amend. Although it is true “a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it,” it remains the case that “where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147; see also Kittredge Sports co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (“[Defendant] contends [Plaintiff] unreasonably delayed moving to amend… [e]ven if this were so, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”)); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”); Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 (“In spite of this policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it. On the other hand, where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”) (citations omitted).

Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delays in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 (“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”).)

The Court finds that permitting Defendants to file an amended answer would not prejudice Plaintiff and Plaintiff does not argue it would. Trial is set for August 26, 2024. Therefore, Plaintiff still has time to conduct discovery in relation to Defendants’ additional affirmative defense, if necessary. As to any argument that affirmative defenses not asserted in the original answer have been waived, the Court declines to address the merits of the affirmative defense in connection with this motion since grounds for a demurrer are premature.

In view of the well-established liberality with which amendments are to be allowed, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file the proposed amended answer attached as Exhibit B to the motion within 10 days of this order.