Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 22STCV04999, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22STCV04999, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04999 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: K

Defendant Toyota Material Handling, Inc.’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Answer is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiffs Aniceto Jimenez Vidal, Jr. (“Aniceto”) and Pauline Moreno Vidal (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

On April 10, 2020, Aniceto sustained severe injuries in a workplace forklift accident.

On February 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants GE Appliances (“GEA”), GE Appliances—Decatur, LLC (“GEA—Decatur”), Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. (“Haier”), Toyota Material Handling, Inc. (“Toyota”) and Does 1-40 for:

1. Negligence

2. Negligent Products Liability

3. Strict Products Liability

4. Loss of Consortium

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed GEA, without prejudice. On December 6, 2022, this case was transferred from Department 32 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

On September 20, 2023, a “Stipulation Re: Dismissal of Defendant GE Appliances—Decatur, LLC” was filed; that day, Plaintiffs dismissed GEA—Decatur, without prejudice.

A Case Management Conference is set for December 7, 2023.

Legal Standard

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); and see § 576 [“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order”].)

“[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading.” (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135.) “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [quotation marks and citation omitted].) “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Id. [quotation marks and citation omitted].) With that said, “the failure of a proposed amendment to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense may support an order denying a motion to amend.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280, disapproved of on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4^th 390)

Courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, when no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 739, 761.) However, “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial. . . denial may rest upon the element of lack of diligence in offering the amendment after knowledge of the facts, or the effect of the delay on the adverse party.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 940.)

Also, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (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.” (Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

Additionally, “[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.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Toyota moves the court for leave to amend its answer to include the following additional affirmative defenses: (1) Sophisticated User; (2) Learned Intermediary; (3) Duty to Warn Discharged; and (4) Compliance with Regulation.

Toyota’s motion reflects compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a). While Toyota’s counsel’s declaration reflects technical non-compliance with subdivision (b), it appears from the memorandum of points and authorities that Toyota learned certain facts through Plaintiff’s and Sergio Valdez’s respective depositions which it believes supports the assertion of the aforementioned additional affirmative defenses. (Motion, 2:23-25). Plaintiffs have filed a non-opposition.

The motion is granted.