Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 24STCV06344, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Asdrubal Solis brings this action against the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered severe bodily injuries when his motorcycle collided with a vehicle operate by Teresa Guerrero at the intersection of North Eagle Rock Boulevard and West Avenue 42. Plaintiff alleges the intersection constituted a dangerous condition of public property.

A stand-alone FAC must be filed and served to all current parties within 10 days. Any new parties must be served in a timely manner as provided by law.

If a plaintiff wishes to amend a complaint after the answer has been filed or after the demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the complaint “of course,” permission of the court must be obtained before the amendment will be allowed. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1); see CCP § 576.) Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].)

Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; see also Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490). An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend to file a First Amended Complaint. By the proposed amendments, Plaintiff will add causes of action for Negligence and Negligence Per se, as well as add Angel’s Tijuana Taco’s, Tacos El Venado, and Angel Tamayo Nunez as Defendants. (See Proposed FAC., Exh. A.)

While operating his motorcycle, Plaintiff was involved in a collision with Teresa Guerrero at in the area of the intersection of North Eagle Rock Boulevard and West Avenue 42. (Compl. ¶ 5.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against the City for maintaining a dangerous condition of public property.

Now, it is Plaintiff’s contention that the proposed Defendants’ food truck was blocking the sidewalk near the intersection where the subject collision occurred. (See Proposed FAC, ¶¶ 14-17.) This created a dangerous condition that in part caused the accident between Plaintiff and Guerrero. Plaintiff's FAC will retain its Dangerous Condition of Public Property claim against the City.

Plaintiff’s attorney, Rudolf Petrosyan, states in declaration that “[o]n August 8, 2024, and September 10, 2024, the City of Los Angeles responded to Plaintiff’s First Set of Written Discovery.” (Petrosyan Decl. ¶ 8.) After having “sufficient time to review these responses and further investigate this case,” Plaintiff discovered the need for the amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.)

Here, Plaintiff has not articulated precisely what new evidence was provided in discovery that triggered the need to amend the Complaint. Be that as it may, it is settled that leave to amend should generally only be denied when the amendment is both dilatory and prejudicial. And here, there is little evidence the amendments would cause undue prejudice to any current or proposed Defendants. While the court appreciates that the amendments may expand the scope of the case, trial is not set until April 6, 2026, leaving all parties ample time to conduct discovery and prepare for trial on any new facts or theories.

The court makes no conclusion on the merits of the new claims. Rather, the “better course of action” is to permit the amendment, “and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 760.) Therefore, leave to amend is appropriate. This conclusion is consistent with the “policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits.” (Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Ct. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1163.)

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant City of Los Angeles and on Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Guerrero on January 6, 2024, by email. (See Proof of Service.)

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.