Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV00592, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00592    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Armando Jose Mendoza

Resp. Party:    Defendant City of Montebello

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff Armando Jose Mendoza filed Complaint against Defendants City of Montebello, Thomas Charles Herbert, and Tristar Insurance Group, Inc. regarding car-related injuries Plaintiff suffered.

On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with Gina Skibar.

On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

On June 16, 2022, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendant Tristar Insurance Group, Inc. from the First Amended Complaint.

On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint.

On September 26, 2022, Defendants City of Montebello and Thomas Charles Herbert filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff concurrently filed his Proposed Order.

On February 3, 2023, Defendant filed its opposition.  On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed his reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.)

The court may also, in its discretion and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.)

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The Court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file his Third Amended Complaint so that he may add to his pleading newly discovered facts, a new cause of action, and a request for punitive damages. (Motion, p. 2:1–24.)

The Motion is unopposed.

Plaintiff has met the procedural requirements by including a copy of the serially-numbered amended pleading, stated what items are to be deleted, and what items are to be added. (Motion, p. 2:13–24.)

Plaintiff has also met the substantive requirements regarding the effect of the amendment (to add a cause of action, parties, and allegations), why the amendment is necessary and proper (so that there are no issues left unresolved by this litigation), when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered (after deposing Defendant Skibar on November 2, 2022), and why the request for amendment was not made earlier (not specified, but the Motion was filed approximately two months after the aforementioned deposition). (Motion, pp. 2–4.)

As trial is more than eight months away and there do not appear to be a significant number of changes to the pleading, there appears to be a minimal risk of prejudice to Defendant were the Court to grant the requested leave.

        The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. 

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file his TAC within 3 court days.