Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV07279, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07279    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

DAVID RODENBAUGH, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

CHARLENE HEATHERLY CLINE, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV07279 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

December 5, 2023 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, David Rodenbaugh (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Defendants Charlene Heatherly Cline and Chad Allen Margolin (“Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. On December 13, 2022, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, and filed a cross-complaint against Ursula Crovelto (“Crovelto”) and Roes 1 to 50 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.  

At this time, Defendants seek to file a first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) to add American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Honda”) as a cross-defendant for alleged defective airbags in Plaintiff’s vehicle because Plaintiff claims injury from the deployed airbags striking his head.  

The motion is unopposed. 

 

II. Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint  

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.”  (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)  “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial . . . this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’  [Citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.  [Citation.]”  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1024, 487.)  

A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).)  The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)  

Defendants aver Plaintiff was a passenger in a 1997 Honda CR-V that was driven and owned by Crovelto at the time of the incident. During discovery, Plaintiff produced medical records in which Plaintiff claimed the front of his head struck the dashboard before the airbag pushed his head back, which caused the back of his head to strike the headrest. In July 2023, Defendants searched and learned that the 1997 Honda CR-V had an outstanding recall notice for an issue with the equipped with Non-Azide Driver (NADI) air bag inflators, which did not contain phase stabilized ammonium nitrate propellant. Defendants argue that, due to a manufacturing issue, the NADI inflators may absorb moisture, causing the inflators to rupture or the air bag cushion to underinflate. The declaration provides that the effect of the amendment is to add negligence allegations against Honda for the defective airbags, and that the amendment is necessary and proper because the defective airbags caused Plaintiff’s injury. Defendants discovered these facts in July 2023. Prior to this, Defendants did not know Plaintiff claimed the airbag caused additional injuries for Defendants to search for recall notices and to know of the relevance of the airbag. The declaration of defense counsel sufficiently satisfies the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).  

Further, Defendants provide a copy of the proposed FACC, and sufficiently identifies the location of the proposed additions in their moving papers. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) No party filed an opposition to this Motion. Trial in this action is scheduled for April 4, 2024, and no party will suffer prejudice as a result of this amendment.  

The motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is therefore GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to file its proposed FACC within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 4th day of December 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court