Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV04428, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04428    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Melissa Pellone,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

21STCV04428

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Ryan Crosby, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: September 13, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Melissa Pellone

Responding Party: Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

 

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

 

           PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

 

BACKGROUND

          

           Plaintiff Melissa Pellone sued Defendants Ryan Crosby, Crosby Insurance and Financial Services, Mirzakhanyan Insurance Agency, Inc., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance on February 4, 2021. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2021. The FAC alleges (1) professional negligence and (2) reformation of insurance contract.

 

Defendant Ryan Crosby and Crosby Insurance and Financial Services (“Crosby Insurance”) insured Plaintiff’s mother’s vehicles, one of which is driven by the Plaintiff.  Defendant Crosby and Crosby Insurance are in New York.  Plaintiff lives in Los Angeles.  (FAC, ¶ 8.)

 

Plaintiff’s mother, Debra, advised Crosby that she wanted to increase the uninsured motorist policy limit on Plaintiff’s vehicle to $250,000.  (FAC ¶ 9.)  Because Crosby was not licensed in California, Plaintiff alleges that Crosby formed a joint venture with Mirzakhanyan to write insurance for Debra, and that neither increased the policy as requested.  (FAC ¶ 10.)

 

Plaintiff was in a car accident and sustained injuries.  Plaintiff alleges that because she would have been covered by an uninsured policy with a $250,000 per claim policy limit, State Farm would have paid more than the $100,000 limit of the policy.  (FAC ¶ 25.)

 

ANALYSIS

 

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (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).)

 

It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

 

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend to add a cause of action for vicarious liability against Defendant State Farm. Plaintiff asserts that State Farm is vicariously liable for Ryan Crosby’s professional negligence because Crosby is State Farm’s agent. Crosby was previously dismissed from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

 

In opposition, State Farm argues that Plaintiff has been dilatory in bringing this motion and has failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). State Farm emphasizes that trial is set for January 2023 and their motion for summary judgment must be served by September 29, 2022. State Farm asserts that amendment will require additional discovery, and new expert designations and litigation strategy.

 

Though Plaintiff has been dilatory in bringing this motion, amendment is liberally granted. State Farm has been aware of the allegations against its agents for the entirety of the litigation and trial remains four months away. The Court finds the amendment to be in the interests of justice.

 

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.