Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV01492, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01492, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01492 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Andrino v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

CASE NO.: 23SMCV01492

MOTION: Motion for Leave to Amend

HEARING DATE: 3/8/2024

Legal Standard

If a party wishes to amend a pleading after an answer has been filed, or after a demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the pleading as a matter of course, the party must obtain permission from the court before amendment. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . ..” (CCP § 473(a)(1); see CCP § 576.) Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].) Where leave is sought to add entirely new claims, the court may grant leave to amend if the new claims are based on the same general set of facts, and the amendment will not prejudice the opposing party. (Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 600-602; Glaser v. Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].)

Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490). An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [leave properly denied where plaintiff sought leave on the eve of trial, nearly two years after the complaint was originally filed and gave no explanation for the delay which prejudiced defendant who did not discover or depose many of the witnesses who would support the new allegations and had not marshaled evidence in opposition of the new allegations].)

Procedurally, a motion for leave to amend must state with particularity what allegations are to be amended. Namely, it must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and/or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration specifying: (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. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(b).) The motion must also be accompanied by the proposed amended pleading, numbered to differentiate it from the prior pleadings or amendments. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).) It is within the court’s discretion to require compliance with Rule 3.1324 before granting leave to amend. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Devlin Ricardo Andrino (Molina) moves for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Topchyan Decl., Exs. 5, 6.) Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint to add further information on the named Defendants listed on the causes of actions (including the recently identified doe defendants), correct the name of the Plaintiff, and add facts regarding the incident. Counsel provided, in detail, the effect and specific changes of the proposed FAC. (Id., ¶¶ 8-41.) The amendments seek to clarify and amend allegations regarding the dangerous condition, theories of Defendant’s liability.

Counsel explains that these facts were not alleged earlier because of prior counsel’s failure. On January 18, 2024, current counsel substituted into the case. (Topchyan Decl., ¶4.) Counsel noticed that the complaint had errors, among other things improperly joined parties and missing parties. Counsel seeks to correct these errors with this amendment. The Court notes that counsel does not present when these facts were discovered. That said, the Court agrees that the proposed amendments will better frame the legal and factual basis of the action and clarify the parties to the action.

The Court further does not find any significant prejudice to Defendant City of Santa Monica. The amendments against the City do not alter or expand the nature of the legal or factual issues presented by the initial complaint. Defendant’s contentions on the sufficiency of the pleadings should be addressed in the context of a procedurally proper challenge to the pleadings, such as a demurrer, motion to strike or summary judgment. Further, much of the amendments are mere housekeeping, such as adding the doe defendants’ names, clarifying the actions against them, and correcting Plaintiff’s name. The Court observes no prejudice at all to the present Defendant from such amendments.

Additionally, this action is less than one year old, only one Defendant has answered, and no trial is set. Therefore, amendment is favored here. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.