Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV03489, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV03489, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV03489 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 10, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV03489

CASE NAME: Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez, an individual by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Laura E. Murillo and Laura E. Murillo, an individual v. PLA-FIT Franchise, LLC, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez, an individual by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Laura E. Murillo and Laura E. Murillo, an individual

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, PLA-FIT Franchise, LLC, Planet Fitness Holdings, LLC, Oscar Torres, and/or DOES 1 through 100 (No Opposition)

(Stipulation Filed)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint to Remove Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez (Decedent) as Plaintiff and Instead Add Decedent’s Heirs as Plaintiff’s for the Wrongful Death of Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. The Court will discuss at the hearing whether the parties will stipulate that the existing answers to complaint shall stand, or whether a new responsive pleading will be field by Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On October 20, 2024, Plaintiffs, Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez, an individual by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Laura E. Murillo and Laura E. Murillo, an individual filed a complaint against Defendants, PLA-FIT Franchise, LLC, Planet Fitness Holdings, LLC, Oscar Torres, and/or DOES 1 through 100. On April 16, 2024, Plaintiffs substituted Defendant, Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC as DOE 1, which was granted by this Court on May 13, 2024. On August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs substituted Defendant, So Cal Gyms, LLC as DOE 2. That has not been entered by this Court. On that same date, Plaintiffs substituted Defendant So Cal PF Hawthorne, LLC as DOE 3. That also has not been entered by this Court. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; and (2) Declaratory Relief.

Now, Plaintiffs move for a Motion to Amend the Complaint to Remove Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez (Decedent) as Plaintiff and Instead Add Decedent’s Heirs as Plaintiffs for the alleged Wrongful Death of Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez.

B. Procedural

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Amend the Complaint to Remove Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez (Decedent) as Plaintiff and Instead Add Decedent’s Heirs as Plaintiff’s for the Wrongful Death of Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez. On December 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation to Amend Plaintiff’s complaint, signed by counsel for Defendants, So Cal Gyms, LLC, So Cal Hawthorne, LLC, PLA-FIT Franchise and LLC, and Planet Fitness Holdings, LLC. To date, no opposition has been filed. On December 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs state that they seek leave to amend on the grounds that when they filed the original complaint, Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez was still alive but in a vegetative state. (Declaration of Aimee E. Kirby (“Kirby Decl.”), ¶ 2.) However, since that filing, Cristobal C. Murillo Valdez has passed away. (Kirby Decl., ¶ 2.) Thus, Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint to remove Decedent as a Plaintiff, include his four (4) children as plaintiffs, and amend the complaint to include a claim for wrongful death. Plaintiffs explain that Defendants face no prejudice as the two-year statute of limitation has not even run yet.

Further, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, Plaintiffs include the declaration of their counsel, Aimee E. Kirby, which – combined with the moving papers - set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and/or removed and where, and explicitly stating what new events warranted the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. Kirby explains that on November 22, 2024, Plaintiff, Laura E. Murillo, Decedent’s wife, notified

Plaintiffs’ counsel about Decedent’s passing, and that on November 25, 2024, Kirby sent out the stipulation to all Defendants. (Kirby Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Moreover, the following day, Kirby states that she provided Defendants with a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. (Kirby Decl., ¶ 5.)

In further compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, the moving papers include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a Kirby’s declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice. The Court will discuss at the hearing whether the parties will stipulate that the existing answers to complaint shall stand, or whether a new responsive pleading will be field by Defendants.