Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20STCV24406, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24406    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: SEC

MUK v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al.

CASE NO.:  20STCV24406

HEARING:  12/6/22 @ 10:30 AM

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Muk’s motion for leave to file third amended complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the third amended complaint by December 7, 2022.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Muk moves for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) to include alter ego allegations against Defendants pursuant to CCP § 473.

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that on June 30, 2018, Plaintiff Alice Muk was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Defendant Jeffrey Milan, when Milan’s vehicle was rear-ended by a box truck driven by Defendant Victor Huaman.  (SAC, ¶ 22.)  Milan’s vehicle became disabled and was subsequently struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Defendant Richard Carlson.  (Id.)  Carlson was employed by the Yellow Cab Entities.  (Id., ¶ 10.)  Plaintiff alleges defects in the seats, seatbelts, affirmative defense vehicle rear structures.  (Id., ¶¶ 29, 33.)  The collision rendered Plaintiff paraplegic.  (SAC, ¶ 1.)  Based thereon, the SAC asserts causes of action for:

1.    Strict Product Liability

2.    Negligent Product Liability

3.    Motor Vehicle Negligence

Plaintiff move for leave to file a TAC to include alter ego allegations against Defendants Administrative Services Cooperative, Inc., Long Beach Yellow Cab Co-Operative, Inc., Van Ness Enterprises, Inc., Taxisystems, Inc., William Rouse, and John Rouse.

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (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.) 

In opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff is amending the complaint to defeat Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and “move the target.”

The court find that Defendants will not be prejudiced. Although trial is set for February 2, 2023, the parties may seek a trial continuance and a discovery extension based on the new allegations. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the Third Amended Complaint by December 7, 2022.