Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV29873, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 24STCV29873    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendant Gerardo Alvarez’ Motion for Leave to file an Amended Answer is GRANTED.

Background

            On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Prado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Gerardo Alvarez and Lyft, Inc. (“Defendants”) arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 24, 2023, alleging causes of action for:

1.           Motor Vehicle Negligence; and

2.           General Negligence.

On December 12, 2024, Defendant Gerardo Alvarez filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On December 18, 2024, Defendant Lyft, Inc. filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On February 24, 2025, Defendant Gerardo Alvarez filed this Motion for Leave to file an amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.[1] No opposition or other responsive pleading 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

Defendant Gerardo Alvarez (“Alvarez”) seeks leave to file an amended answer to Plaintiff’s complaint to include additional affirmative defenses. (Motion, at p. 3.) Alvarez explains that at the time his initial answer was filed, Alvarez was not represented by Counsel and Alvarez filed an answer on his own to avoid missing the filing deadline. (Ibid.) However, Alvarez is now represented by counsel. (Ibid.) Additionally, Alvarez argues that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff as discovery has not commenced and the proposed affirmative defenses are added to provide more detail as to the basis for Alvarez’ denial of Plaintiff’s claims. (Id., at p. 4.)

            The court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose Alvarez’ motion, which the court construes as a tacit admission that Alvarez’ arguments are meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) 

The court finds that Alvarez 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 attaching the proposed amended answer with a supporting declaration. (Schrieffer Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C.) Additionally, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the amendment as a trial date has not been set and there is ample time to object to the amended answer and conduct discovery.  

Conclusion

Defendant Gerardo Alvarez’ Motion for Leave to file an Amended Answer is GRANTED.