Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV32717, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32717    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Stephanie Blanks (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Donatello Stone Design Inc. (“DSD”), Wilmer Rolando Cruz Lopez (“Lopez”), and Babken Ovsepian for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to request punitive damages against DSD.  Defendants DSD and Lopez (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Plaintiff seeks to file the proposed FAC to add a request for punitive damages against DSD asserting that at time of the accident, Lopez, who was DSD’s employee, did not have a valid driver’s license, and that DSD was aware of that fact but still let Lopez operate the vehicle that collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff learned of the facts supporting the request for punitive damages during Lopez’s deposition, and Plaintiff argues that the amendments will not prejudice DSD. 

In opposition, Defendants argue that the FAC fails to allege specific facts to support a prayer for punitive damages, and that Plaintiff fails to cite any authority showing that being an unlicensed employee-driver is sufficient to subject an employer to punitive damages.  Defendant further contends the accident occurred at low speed and that the FAC fails to include any allegations against DSD as a corporation. 

Plaintiff, in reply, contends that DSD had direct knowledge of Lopez’s unfitness to operate a motor vehicle but still had Lopez drive DSD’s truck.  Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ factual arguments about the accident are improper at this stage and do not affect Plaintiff’s right to amend the complaint. 

2. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

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.)

Here, Plaintiff’s motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration submitted with the motion states 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 was not made earlier.  Further, Plaintiff submits a copy of the proposed FAC and identifies the allegations that Plaintiff is seeking to add.  Defendants do not otherwise argue they will be prejudiced or identify any prejudice they will suffer is Plaintiff is permitted to file the FAC.  To the extent that Defendants contend that the FAC does not sufficiently plead a claim for punitive damages against DSD, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on the motion for leave amend.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co., 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.)   Defendants have the ability to raise issues with the substance of the FAC when they respond to it.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted.  Plaintiff must file a separate copy of the First Amendment Complaint within 10 days.

Plaintiff 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 17^th day of March 2023