Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV06153, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06153    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 34

Plaintiff Sonia Elizabeth Romero Martinez’ Motion For Leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Background

            On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff Sonia Elizabeth Romero Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Majestic Management Company, Majestic Realty Inc., Liftech Elevator Services Inc., and Does 1-20 (“Defendants”) arising from injuries sustained by Plaintiff when riding Defendants’ elevator alleging causes of action for:

1.               Negligence;

2.               Premises Liability; and

3.               Products Liability.

On May 31, 2024, Defendant Majestic Realty Inc. filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On June 18, 2024, Defendant Liftech Elevator Services Inc. filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming Doe 1 as 6055 Washington, LLC.

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). On December 30, 2024 and January 2, 2025, Defendants Liftech Elevator Services Inc. (“Liftech”) and Majestic Realty Inc. (“Majestic”) filed individual oppositions. No reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civ. Proc. section 473, subd. (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.”¿Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (internal citations omitted).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . .”¿ (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)¿¿¿ 

¿ 

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.134(b).)¿

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks leave to file an FAC to include two causes of action for common carrier and product liability. (Motion, at p. 3.) Plaintiff contends that further research has revealed that proprietors of buildings and servicers of elevators are common carries within the definition of Civil Code section 2100, et seq. giving rise to a heightened duty of care and allowing Plaintiff to allege a common carrier and product liability causes of action against Defendants. (Id., at pp. 3-7.)

            In opposition, Liftech argues that Plaintiff fails to adequately explain when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered or why leave to amend was not sought earlier. (Liftech Opp., at pp. 3-5.) Additionally, Liftech argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as the two causes of action for common carrier and product liability fail as a matter of law. (Id., pp. 5-6.) Lastly, Liftech argues that it would be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s amendment. (Id., pp. 7-8.) Similarly, Majestic opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that Plaintiff’s proposed causes of actions fail as a matter of law. (Majestic Opp., at pp. 3-6.)

The court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of rule 3.1324(a) and 3.134(b) by identifying the changes to be made; providing an explanation for why the amendment was not made earlier; and attached the proposed amended complaint with a supporting declaration. 

Further, Defendants will not be prejudiced, as a trial date has not yet been set. Defendants will have ample time to object to the amended complaint and conduct discovery. Defendants will also have an opportunity to dispute Plaintiff’s proposed causes of action through the appropriate procedural methods.

Conclusion