I. Background  

On September 22, 2020, plaintiff Honor Farrens (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Does 1 to 25 for damages arising from a trip and fall on a concrete lip. On July 28, 2022, the City filed a cross-complaint against HNF International, Inc. (“HNF”). On September 15, 2022, HNF filed its Answer and a cross-complaint against California Grading & Paving Co. Inc. (“CGP”). CGP filed its Answer on January 3, 2023. On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint naming CGP as Doe 1 and HNF as Doe 2.  

Trial is currently set for April 22, 2024.  

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to (1) substitute Doe 1 with CPG, (2) substitute Doe 2 with HNF, (3) add a cause of action for general negligence against CPG and HNF, and (4) add a cause of action for premises liability under California Civil Code Section 1714 against all parties, and (5) add a cause of action for negligence per se under Government Code 815.6 against City of Los Angeles.  

Any opposition was due on or before February 14, 2024; the motion is unopposed.  

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 asserts she discovered that HNF purchased a large parcel of land to develop new homes, and had hired CPG to pave half the street with set out specification by the City. However, CPG did not finish its specifications set by the City, which was to flush out the asphalt without a ledge. Plaintiff took the deposition of the PMK for CPG on September 21, 2023, and the deposition of PMK for HNF on October 31, 2023. Plaintiff contends she learned of new facts of these defendants’ culpability through the depositions, and through additional written discovery completed around November 2023. Plaintiff argues no parties will be prejudiced by the amendment because it will not delay the current trial date since discovery is completed.   

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. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 28th day of February 2024