SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff Cesar Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Teresa Montes De Oca and Robert Martinez for damages arising from a fall over an alleged dangerous condition. Trial is currently set for November 18, 2024.  

At this time, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to assert causes of action for Breach of Statutory Obligation, Negligent Exercise of Retained Control, Negligence, and Premises Liability. The motion is unopposed.  

The motion was previously heard on December 11, 2023, but continued to December 27, 2023 to allow Plaintiff to submit a supplemental brief and declaration in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). (Min. Order, Dec. 11, 2023.) On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration. The Court will now address the motion on the merits. 

 

II. Motion for Leave to File FAC  

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “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.”  

“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. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.) 

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.  

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (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.  

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  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.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) 

Plaintiff argues the FAC is necessary to allege all wrongful acts and legal theories in the action. Plaintiff avers the initial complaint focuses on negligence and premises liability, but neglects to address violations of §§3706-3709 and that these statutory breaches are pivotal the case. Plaintiff avers the proposed amendment seeks to clarify the employer-employee relationship established under Labor Code §2750.5. Although Plaintiff was unable to reach a stipulation, defense counsel stated they would not oppose the motion. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration provides that the effect of the amendment is to conform the causes of action to the facts of the case, and that the amendment is necessary because it enhances Plaintiff’s potential recovery by addressing violations of Labor code §3700, which include attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff became aware of the facts giving rise to the amended allegations when his counsel substituted in on March 13, 2023, and upon review of the case file, Plaintiff’s counsel determined the matter was grounded in statutory violations rather than negligence. Following Plaintiff’s counsel’s substitution, Plaintiff’s counsel discussed the matter with defense counsel, and December 11, 2023 was the earliest available date for the motion (later continued to December 27, 2023).  

The motion complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a) and CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a FAC is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file a separate copy of the proposed FAC within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. 

  

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.  

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

 

Dated this 26th day of December 2023