SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff Elka Paola Orrego Morales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Kingsley Project, LLC, SAC-MM Properties LLC for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk. Trial is currently set for September 24, 2024.  

At this time, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to correct the alleged location of the incident. The motion is unopposed.  

Initially, this matter was set to be heard on December 4, 2023. However, the Court briefly continued the hearing to December 19, 2023 so that Plaintiff may submit a supplemental brief and declaration to the motion in compliance with CRC, Rule 3.1324(a). (Min. Order, Dec. 4, 2023.) 

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief and declaration curing the previously identified defect. Therefore, the Court will now consider the motion on the merits.  

 

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 provides she tripped and fell on the raised edge of a sidewalk located at or near 939 S Kingsley Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90006. However, the complaint incorrectly alleges the incident occurred at or near 951 S. Harvard Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA 90006. Plaintiff became aware of this issue on August 18, 2023 following a discussion with defense counsel. Plaintiff sought a stipulation among all defendants to amend the complaint to reflect the correct location of the incident. However, not all parties to the action agreed to stipulate, thereby necessitating the motion.  

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Further, Plaintiff’s supplemental brief complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a), specifically identifying the location of the proposed change to the address of the incident from 951 S. Harvard Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA 90006 to 939 S Kingsley Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90006 at ¶8, line 6, page 3; ¶19, line 14, page 6; ¶31, line 10, page 11; and ¶40, line 19, page 13 of the complaint.  

 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a FAC is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file a separate copy of her proposed FAC within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.   

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.  

 

 

Dated this 18th day of December 2023