Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV45654, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45654    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Marcela Elidet Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Liliana Cruz (“Defendant”) for damages Plaintiff allegedly sustained during an altercation between the two parties. On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On July 12, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the SAC.

At this time, Defendant seeks leave to file a First Amended Answer to the SAC to assert affirmative defenses not previously pled in the Answer when Defendant was representing herself in pro per. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Defendant has not replied to the opposition.

2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to the SAC

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.)  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.

Defendant contends that she should be permitted leave to amend her Answer to the SAC to allege various affirmative defenses not pled previously, as she was representing herself in pro per at that time and did not fully understand what she was doing when she prepared her original Answer. She also contends that she was eight months pregnant in November 2022 when she retained counsel and had to  address other matters at that time, such as responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and then later a motion for summary judgment. She further contends that she filed a motion for leave to amend her Answer to the SAC previously on December 23, 2022, but had filed the motion in the wrong department. When the motion was heard on February 2, 2023, the Court advised Defendant of her error and informed her she would need to file the motion again.

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends she would suffer undue prejudice, as trial is scheduled for May 11, 2023, which is less than a month away. She contends that granting the motion would require delaying the trial and would result in the loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, and increased discovery burdens. She also contends that no good cause exists because Defendant misled the Plaintiff by waiting for Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment and almost three months after retaining an attorney. She further contends Defendant’s counsel should have acted sooner because he knew when he was retained that a trial was scheduled and what the contents of Defendant’s original Answer were.

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324 and that there is a sufficient basis for granting Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff did not complete service of process on Defendant until June 2022, which means Defendant has not even been involved in this action for a year. (Proof of Service (6/29/2022.) Defendant then retained counsel five months later in November 2022 when she was eight months pregnant, and she had other more time sensitive matters to address at the time, such as responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and then Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shortly thereafter. (Ghaznavi Decl., ¶¶  5-8.) Defendant also had attempted to file the motion in December 2022, i.e., not even two months after having retained counsel, but mistakenly filed it in the wrong department, which resulted in a delay. (Ghaznavi Decl., ¶¶  11-13.)

The Court is aware that trial is scheduled for May 11, 2023, and that permitting Defendant to amend her Answer to the SAC so close to trial is potentially prejudicial to Plaintiff. However, the Court finds that denying Defendant the opportunity to amend her Answer to the SAC would impose a greater prejudice on Defendant than a delay of trial would impose on Plaintiff. It is in the best interest of all involved that a full opportunity is provided to everyone to prepare and present their case so that all of the key issues are adequately addressed at trial.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. The proposed amended Answer to the SAC, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Aasim Ghaznavi, is deemed filed and served as of the date of this order.

On its own motion, the Court also CONTINUES the trial to November 29, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. and the Final Status Conference to November 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in department 31.  All discovery and trial related deadlines are to be reset according to the new trial and Final Status Conference dates.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 17^th day of April, 2023