SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff Paul Martin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC (“Smart & Final”) for damages arising from an assault by a third party while outside of the Smart & Final store. Plaintiff sets forth two causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.   

At this time, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add Lincoln LT, Inc. (“Lincoln”) as a new defendant to the action.  

As of January 12, 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 argues the FAC is necessary because Plaintiff did not discover Lincoln until after discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration provides that the effect of the amendment is to add and include all alleged responsible defendants, and that the amendment is necessary and proper because Plaintiff was attacked at a parking lot owned by landlord Lincoln. (Mot. Avaness Decl. ¶3.)  Further, Plaintiff became aware of the facts giving rise to the amendment when Plaintiff’s counsel received Defendant Smart & Final’s responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set two, on August 1, 2023. Smart & Final’s responses stated the owner of the subject premises was Lincoln. (Id. at ¶ 4; Exh. 2.) The instant motion was filed on September 25, 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.