Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: TC028076, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: TC028076    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: S27

The Court and parties are familiar with the background history of this case and will not restate it here.  As it relates to this motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for “failure to adequately train.” 

The motion presents two issues.  First, does the proposed 4AC “relate back” to the filing of the original complaint, such that the statute of limitations does not bar the newly-added proposed claim?  Second, did Plaintiff delay in filing the motion and did the delay prejudice Defendants? 

The threshold issue is whether the proposed new cause of action in the 4AC, for failure to adequately train in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, relates back to the filing of the original complaint.  The parties discuss the ruling of Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575, 583-585 in this regard.  In Grudt, the plaintiff sued the city for the wrongful death of her husband.  After the statute of limitations had run, she sought leave to add an allegation that the City had been negligent in employing the officers who killed her husband.  The trial court denied her request, but the Court of Appeals reversed.  The Court of Appeals held that the proposed amended complaint was based on the same general set of facts as the original complaint, as both arose out of the officers’ killing of the plaintiff’s husband. 

While Defendants attempt to distinguish Grudt, the Court finds it is directly on point, and Defendants do not cite any contrary authority.  In this case, Plaintiff originally sued Officer Billoups and was pursuing the County on a respondeat superior theory.  By way of this proposed amended complaint, she seeks to add a claim for negligent training.  This is almost exactly the same as the situation in Grudt, and therefore the Court finds the proposed amendment relates back to the filing of the original complaint such that there is no statute of limitations bar. 

The second, and more difficult, issue, is whether Plaintiff delayed in filing her claim and whether the delay prejudiced Defendants.  Plaintiff argues there was no delay because she only became aware of the need to pursue a negligent training claim when this court ruled, after remand, that Officer Billoups can pursue a §820.6 immunity defense.  If Billoups is successful in asserting the defense, and if the only claims against the County are vicarious in nature, then Plaintiff will have no claim against the County in light of the immunity defense.

Plaintiff’s argument is somewhat misguided.  Plaintiff does not argue, nor could she, that she only recently discovered the negligent training cause of action exists.  She is arguing, on the contrary, that her litigation strategy necessarily changed when she realized the trial court would permit the defendants to pursue an immunity defense.  Notably, this type of ruling is precisely why most plaintiffs’ attorneys pursue all potential alternative theories from the outset of the case. 

Delay, standing alone, cannot support denial of a motion for leave to amend; the delay must have resulted in prejudice to the defendant.  See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.  This is a very difficult issue.  As Defendants correctly note, the incident that forms the basis of this litigation occurred approximately ten years ago.  Memories have faded.  Additionally, Defendants have prepared their defense based on the theories advanced, and are entitled to have a trial scheduled expediently in light of the age of the case and the procedural history of the litigation.    

The motion for leave to amend is denied.  Plaintiffs delayed in filing the motion, and the delay has prejudiced Defendants. 

The parties are reminded that there is a trial setting conference on calendar concurrently with the hearing on this motion.  The Court asks Counsel to make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on the motion and TSC.