Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV02524, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02524, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02524 Hearing Date: April 30, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: April 30, 2024

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02524

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: County of Los Angeles v. Stadco LC, LLC

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Stadco LA, LLC or Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC (No Opposition)

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

¿¿¿

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

¿¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) CONTINUED to June 13, 2024 to enable filing of a supplemental declaration containing the missing components of a motion to amend a pleading

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff, County of Los Angeles (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Stadco LA, LLC, Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for: (1) Premises Liability. Also p[ending is a workers compensation subrogation action involving the same incident, case no. 23TRCV02978. On March 13, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate actions, which was granted that same day.

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

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and file First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 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

Here, Plaintiff asserts that the consolidation of the workers compensation subrogation action with the personal injury action arises out of an incident that occurred on September 12, 2021 when Plaintiff’s employee, Deputy Sheriff Deloy Baker was boarding a freight elevator at SoFi Stadium while in the course and scope of his employment. Plaintiff alleges that as Deputy Baker was entering the elevator, the horizontal doors of the elevator began to close, and he tripped over the lower door thereby sustaining injuries and damages requiring Plaintiff to pay workers compensation benefits to and on behalf of Deputy Baker.

Plaintiff notes that its original Complaint contained one cause of action for Premises Liability against the owner/operator of SoFi Stadium, Stadco LA, LLC, and Hollywood Park Management Company, LLC. IN this motion, Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for General Negligence including Common Carrier Liability and Products Liability based on information obtained after the filing of its original complaint.

Plaintiff argues that this amendment is necessary and proper because it would be in the furtherance of justice so that the County of Los Angeles can allege the appropriate causes of action against Otis Elevator Company, Contemporary Services Corporation once they are added to the complaint and that manufacturer of the elevator once its identity is determined through written discovery, which has just commenced. (Declaration of Richard M. Stoll (“Stoll Decl.”), ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also notes that since it filed its original complaint, Deputy Baker filed his own complaint stating causes of action for Common Carrier Liability, Negligence, and Premises Liability.

This Court notes that Plaintiff has not entirely complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, since it did not include in the Stoll Declaration what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. Although the Stoll declaration does include: (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, and (2) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments, it does not include: (1) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, nor does it include (2) the date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) As such, this Court’s tentative ruling is to CONTINUE the hearing on the motion to enable Plaintiff to submit a supplemental declaration informing the Court of the missing information. Given a TSC on Juhne 13 is already on calendar, the Court suggests the hearing on this motion be continued to that same date, time and place.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File her First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration containing the missing ingredients.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.