Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00050607-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00050607-CU-PA-CTL ANDERS VS ERNST [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant John Ernst's motion to amend his answer to the complaint is GRANTED.

As of January 11, 2024, Plaintiff Penny Anders has not filed an opposition to Defendant's motion.

Pursuant to this court's local rules, this failure to respond may be regarded as a concession that Defendant's motion has merit. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd. (B).) Defendant seeks to amend his answer to Plaintiff's December 19, 2022 complaint to add affirmative defenses for offset of worker's compensation benefits and for contributory employer negligence under Witt v. Jackson, which he inadvertently failed to include at the time he answered that complaint on February 17, 2023.

The trial court has wide discretion to allow amendments to the pleadings, and such discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments. (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 178; see also Kittredge v. Superior Court (213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), gives the court authority, 'in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper,' to allow a party to 'amend any pleading by . . . correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.' 'If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.' (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; see also Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159 ['In particular, liberality should be displayed in allowing amendments to answers, for a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.'].) Here, Defendant's motion is timely, and it will not prejudice Plaintiff, as she does not dispute she has already received worker's compensation benefits, and she is not entitled to a double recovery.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and Defendant has leave to file the proposed amended answer attached as Exhibit 1 to his proposed order (ROA #102).

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049005  28