Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02297, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02297    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE:                 October 29, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV02297

CASE NAME:                        Yury Chailyan v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Yury Chailyan

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant, City of Palos Verdes Estates or County of Los Angeles  (No Opposition Briefs Filed)

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

MOTION:                              (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED.  The Court will conduct the CMC scheduled for November 7 after the motion hearing, provided all counsel are present or remotely appearing

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On June 17, 2023, Plaintiff, Yury Chailyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, City of Palos Verdes Estates, County of Los Angeles, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Violation of California Government Code section 835, et seq.  

Now, Plaintiff moves on a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

B. Procedural

On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

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

            Plaintiff seeks leave to file her FAC on the grounds that she states she erroneously included causes of action that are not applicable to all named Defendants, and on the ground of the established policy in California liberally permitting amendment at any stage of the proceeding. Plaintiff asserts that the following allegations in the original complaint are to be deleted: (1) Negligence; and (2) Premises Liability. Plaintiff attaches the declaration of Nathan Amerberg, Esq. (“Amerberg Decl.”) which notes that counsel for both parties met on June 7, 2024, and that counsel for Defendant advised that they would be moving to strike the first two causes of action if the complaint was not amended. (Amerberg Decl., ¶ 3.) As a result of Amerberg’s discussion with Defense counsel, Plaintiff has requested leave to file a FAC with revisions to the cause of actions and includes a copy of the proposed FAC. (Amerberg Decl., ¶ 4.)

In compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds., (a) and (b), Plaintiff filed: (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment (Amerberg Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit 1.); (2) details specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted; and (3) specifies the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments, and date of discovery being June 7, 2024, when Amerberg met with defense counsel. (Amerberg Decl., ¶ 3.)

            Here, because Plaintiff has complied with the requirements on this motion and there is no opposition on file, this Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File her First Amended Complaint is GRANTED  

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.