Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV28801, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV28801, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28801 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 30

HILDA ENGIBEGIAN vs ROSS STORES INC

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed amended complaint attached as exhibit one 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

Plaintiff seeks a court order allowing her to file an amended complaint to allege an additional cause of action for products liability.

Plaintiff has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed pleading, and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading (the cause of action for products liability). (Der-Tatevossian Decl., Ex. 1.)

Further, the Court finds that the amendment would not prejudice Defendant. Defendant was added to this case and thus knew a claim was being brought against it. Defendant states it does not own, possess or control the Ross store. As such, it was clear Plaintiff would have ultimately amended the complaint, which only alleged a cause of action for premises liability, to raise a proper cause of action against Defendant. Further, trial is not until September and therefore, Defendant has plenty of time to prepare its defense. Further, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that its added costs for filing a demurrer constitute prejudice.

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).

While Plaintiff has not explained 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 light of the policy in favor of amendments, the Court exercises its discretion liberally and grants the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Further, it is quite obvious why the amendment is necessary and proper: to add a cause of action for products liability against Defendant, the alleged manufacturer of the plexiglass at issue.

Defendant argues that the amended complaint alleges an additional cause of action for a separate incident that took place at Dodgers Stadium. While the motion appears to have a typographical error and references that the incident took place on a different date and at Dodgers Stadium, the proposed pleading does not mention Dodgers Stadium, or an incorrect date.

Lastly, Defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the allegations in the proposed amended complaint should be raised in a demurrer. Moreover, while Defendant argues that Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for premises liability against it even though it does not own, possess, or control the Ross store, the Court has reviewed the proposed pleading and notes the premises liability cause of action is only against Ross, and not against Defendant.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.