Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 18NWCV00201 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 18NWCV00201, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 18NWCV00201 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: SEC

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. HANES GEO COMPONENTS, et al.

CASE NO.: 18NWCV00201

HEARING: 12/13/22 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve its second amended complaint by December 14, 2022.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Los Angeles Unified School District moves for leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to CCP § 473.

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleadings.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant Hanes Geo Components (“Hanes Geo”) was negligent in the failure of an underground storm water detention system as part of a project to construct a new high school in Huntington Park, California. Based thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for:

1. Negligence

2. Declaratory Relief

3. Breach of Contract

4. Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The proposed SAC deletes allegations pertaining to Lexington Insurance Company following Plaintiff’s settlement with Lexington. Plaintiff also seeks leave to add a new cause of action for strict products liability against Hanes Geo and EcoRain System, Inc., and a cause of action for Breach of Contract against McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. (“McCarthy”).

In opposition, McCarthy argues that it will be prejudiced because it has prepared its position concerning alleged construction defects – not an insurance deductible breach of contract action. McCarthy also argues that the claim is not viable because McCarthy never agreed to pay the deductible, the claim is time barred, and/or the language relied upon has not been triggered.

In opposition, Hanes Geo argues that LAUSD inexcusably delayed in seeking this amendment for at least four years and appears to have done so solely for unwarranted strategic reasons. Hanes Geo also argues that the FAC is a sham.

The court finds that judicial efficiency favors resolving all of the parties’ disputed matters in the same lawsuit. The court does not find that the parties will be prejudiced by the amendment because trial has been continued to July 10, 2023, and discovery cut-off has been extended to coincide with the new trial date. (August 15, 2022 Minute Order).

Defendants’ remaining objections concern defects in the pleading itself. Courts generally do not consider the validity of proposed amendments to a pleading. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) The better method is to allow the amendment and permit the opposing party to demur. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2006) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve its second amended complaint by December 14, 2022.