Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STCV00237, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 18STCV00237    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Granite State Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTIES:     (1) Defendant Rancho Pacific Insurance Services, Inc.

                                                (2) Defendant Anya Neveleva

                                                (3) Defendant All Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Granite State Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order granting it leave to file a First Amended Complaint in this action (1) to add facts alleging the existence of two contracts relevant to indemnification and liability for damages; (2) to add two causes of action for (i) contractual indemnity, and (ii) breach of contract; (3) to omit claims against defendant Anya Neveleva that have been summarily adjudicated; and (4) to make minor formatting changes in accordance with these revisions.  (Hagemann Decl., ¶ 2; Hagemann Decl., Exs. A-B [redlined and clean copies of proposed First Amended Complaint].)  Plaintiff contends that amendment is necessary because it recently discovered, in February of 2023, the existence of two contracts which support the proposed causes of action for contractual indemnity and breach of contract.  (Hagemann Decl., ¶ 9.)

Defendants Rancho Pacific Insurance Services, Inc. (“Rancho Pacific”), Anya Neveleva (“Neveleva”), and All Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“All Insurance”) (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed separate oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that (1) Plaintiff did not act diligently in pursuing the discovery that led to the production of the two contracts; (2) Plaintiff’s motion is a delay tactic to avoid the two pending motions for summary judgment; (3) amendment would be prejudicial because Defendants contend that the claims lack merit; and (4) as to defendants Rancho Pacific and All Insurance, amendment would be prejudicial since the court would not rule on their pending motions for summary judgment.

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect….The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)

The court finds that (1) it is in furtherance of justice to allow Plaintiff to amend its complaint to add the two proposed causes of action and supporting allegations based on the documents it recently obtained in discovery, and (2) Defendants have not demonstrated that they will be unduly prejudiced by amendment.  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  

First, the court finds that Plaintiff has acted diligently in seeking to amend its complaint.  Plaintiff has presented evidence showing that it has recently discovered the facts giving rise to the amendment, and specifically, that Plaintiff obtained two contracts on February 14, 2023, which Plaintiff contends will support the two additional causes of action for contractual indemnity and breach of contract.  (Hagemann Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, 11.)  Upon receiving this discovery, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendants’ counsel regarding its intent to amend the complaint, and promptly filed this motion thereafter on March 3, 2023.

Second, although the court notes that Defendants contend that the proposed causes of action lack legal merit, “‘the preferable practice [is] 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.’”  (Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.)

Finally, the court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated that they will be substantially prejudiced by this amendment.  Although Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication will be rendered moot by the filing of the First Amended Complaint, Defendants will still have the opportunity to refile their motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication directed to the amended complaint.  Further, although Rancho Pacific has expressed the concern that it will be unable to set a hearing on any responsive pleading directed to the First Amended Complaint, such as a demurrer, before trial due to the court’s calendaring system, Rancho Pacific may file an ex parte application or other appropriate motion requesting that the court advance any hearing that is scheduled after trial. 

ORDER

The court grants plaintiff Granite State Insurance Company’s motion for leave to file amended complaint.

The court orders plaintiff Granite State Insurance Company to file its First Amended Complaint, in the form attached to the declaration of Kelly M. Hagemann as Exhibit B, no later than April 17, 2023.

The court orders plaintiff Granite State Insurance Company to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 14, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court