SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiffs Joshua P. Hobbs and Eugenia Victoria Alfonzo (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Lisa Kahn Mazzarella and Jeffrey Paul Mazzarella for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. 

At this time, Plaintiffs seek leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add the Estate of Lisa Kahn Mazzarella, deceased, and Jeffrey Paul Mazzarella, deceased, as defendants to the action. 

 

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.) 

Plaintiffs contend they were informed by defense counsel that Defendant Jeffrey Paul Mazzarella died on April 17, 2023, and Defendant Lisa Kahn Mazzarella died on June 27, 2023. Plaintiffs’ amendment to the complaint will be based on Probate Codes 550 and 552, which provides that in an action against a deceased person, Plaintiff seeks recovery of insurance proceeds only against the Estate of decedents. Plaintiffs aver they are willing to limit their recovery to the combined policy limits of the deceased defendants by proceeding under Probate code sections 550 and 552. The motion is unopposed. 

 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a separate copy of their proposed FAC within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.