Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC03837, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03837    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Kaur, et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Harjinder Kaur dba HK Trucking Co (“Defendant”) on June 20, 2023. On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint on December 22, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for automobile subrogation in the amount of $18,915.78. (FAC, p. 1.) Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint to increase the damages sought based on additional repairs to Plaintiff’s insured’s vehicle. (Id. at p. 2:3-6.) As set forth in the Motion, leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Also, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by a declaration explaining what changes are to be made to the First Amended Complaint. (Motion, Cicione Decl., ¶¶3-4.) The Motion also explains that the necessity of these changes arose upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s learning in November 2023 that additional damages had been paid to its insured. (Ibid.) A copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached to the Motion. (Id. at Exh. A.)

The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the First Amended Complaint prior to demonstrating service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant, or any appearance by Defendant in this action. There is no indication of excusable delay nor prejudice to Defendant.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.