Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00437, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00437    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On August 11, 2023, Decedent Angela Shalome Streat Wilson (“Wilson”) filed suit against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“Defendant”) in the related case number 23SMCV03800,[1] alleging two causes of action for (1) elder abuse and (2) negligence, based on allegations that Wilson eloped from Defendant’s medical facility while in Defendant’s care, that Defendant’s conduct injured Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff had still not been found.

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff Megan Frilot (“Frilot”) brought suit in this case against Defendant as the Decedent’s heir.

In the course of briefing in connection with a motion to quash discovery in the related case, the parties discovered that Wilson had subsequently died and Frilot was not Wilson’s heir because (1) Wilson was still married at the time of her death; (2) Wilson had several other children; and (3) Frilot’s legal connection to Wilson was severed by virtue of Frilot’s adoption under Probate Code section 6451.  (See Minute Order, Oct. 30, 2024 in Related Case no. 23SMCV03800.)

The Court set an order to show cause in both cases why the complaints should not be dismissed for lack of standing. 

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Jon Streat II, the Decedent’s husband at the time of her death, in place of Frilot as the Plaintiff.  The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Amendments to Pleadings: General Provisions

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

            To wit, without notice to the other party the Court has wide discretion to allow either party (i) to add or strike the name of a party or (ii) to correct a mistake in the name of a party or a mistake in any other respect “in furtherance of justice” and “on any terms as may be proper.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also Marriage of Liss (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1429.) Alternatively, after notice to the other party, the Court has wide discretion to allow either party to amend pleadings “upon any terms as may be just.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1). Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

            Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is liberally granted. (Berman vs. Bromberg (1986) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489 [this has been an established policy in California since 1901] (citing Frost v. Whitter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Thomas v. Bruza (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 150, 155).) The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held “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 (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.) Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].)

            “The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 6:636 (hereafter Weil & Brown).) Denial of a motion to amend is rarely justified if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party. (Id. at ¶ 6:639, citations omitted.) However, if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Id. at ¶ 6:655, citations omitted. Absent prejudice, any claimed delay alone is not grounds for denial. “If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:653 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565).) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. . . . But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not the kind of prejudice the court will consider.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:656, citations omitted.)

            “Even if some prejudice is shown, the judge may still permit the amendment but impose conditions, as the Court is authorized to grant leave ‘on such terms as may be proper.’” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:663, citation omitted.) For example, the court may cause the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs and fees incurred in preparing for trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:664 (citing Fuller v. Vista Del Arroyo Hotel, 42 Cal.App.2d 400, 404).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324: Procedural Requirements

            Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

            In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

“(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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff has provided a copy of the proposed amended complaint, and seeks only to replace instances of “Megan Frilot” with “Jon Streat II” throughout, without making any other changes to the allegations.

            In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides the Declaration of David M. Medby, which provides:

4. The purpose and effect of the proposed amendment is to substitute a plaintiff with standing (Jon Streat II, the decedent’s husband) for Plaintiff Megan Frilot who lacks standing.

(Medby Decl. ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff also advances the Declaration of William M. Artigliere, which provides:

2. In the intervening period of time since the last hearing on this matter, we were informed that Angela Shalome Streat Wilson was married to her husband, Jon Streat. Accordingly, Plaintiff wishes to report to the Court that it is Plaintiffs intent upon moving the Court to have Jon Streat appointed as the Successor in Interest for Plaintiff Angela Shalome Streat Wilson.

(Artigliere Decl. ¶ 2.)

            Although the attorney declarations in support of the motion could be cleaner, the Court is able to glean from the record and the attorney declarations roughly when the facts giving rise to the proposed amendment were discovered, why the amendment was not made sooner, why the amendment is necessary and proper, and the effect of the amendment.

            As such, the Court finds the motion both procedurally and substantively proper.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Jon Streat II in place of Angela Shalome Streat Wilson. 

Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint on or before April 11, 2025. 

            The Court further orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  March 27, 2025                              ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court