Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03240, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV03240    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 August 1, 2024

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV03240

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Lowell Barber; Sharon Goodlow v. Los Angeles World Airports, et al.       

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiffs, Lowell Barber and Sharon Goodlow

¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants, City of Los Angeles (which includes Los Angeles World Airports, a department within the City of Los Angeles)

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

¿¿¿ 

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

¿¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED; Plaintiff shall file the FAC within 10 days as a stand-alone pleading rather than as an attachment to the motion.  Court to discuss CMC scheduling at the hearing.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiffs, Lowell Barber and Sharon Goodlow (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Los Angeles World Airports, a municipal entity, City of Los Angeles, a municipal entity, 9139249 Canada, Inc., a California corporation dba Bus.com, Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours and Charters, Inc., a Florida corporation, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision and Training; and (3) Vicarious Liability of Public Entity for Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, and/or Supervision – Gov. Code § 815.2

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

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On July 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and file First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On July 24, 2024, Defendant, City of Los Angeles (which includes Los Angeles World Airports, a department within the City of Los Angeles) (collectively “City”) filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Along with their moving papers, Defendant City filed a request for judicial notice, requesting this Court take judicial notice of the following:

1.      Claim for Damages Form of Plaintiff Sharon Goodlow;

2.      Claim for Damages Form of Plaintiff Lowell Barber.

The Court GRANTS this request and takes judicial notice of the above.

III. 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 seek leave to file their FAC to add a newly discovered Plaintiff and factual allegations. Plaintiffs contend that during discovery, they discovered another company was also involved in the day-to-day operation of the Fly Away Bus service. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to add Four Seasons, LLC, to the subject lawsuit. Further, in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds., (a) and (b), Plaintiffs filed: (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment (Declaration of Erik Harper (“Harper Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exhibit A); (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added (Motion, p. 2.)

            In City’s opposition brief, it argues that Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for vicarious liability of public entity for negligent hiring, training, retention, and/or supervision – Government Code section 815.2 fails. City contends that Plaintiffs seek to hold them and LAWA vicariously liable for the conduct of independent contractors, but no such liability exists under the Government Tort Claims Act. City argues that in their motion, and in the proposed FAC, Plaintiffs cite to no relevant statute imposing an obligation on the City’s or LAWA’s employees to oversee the hiring, training, retention, and/or supervision regimes of any of the independent contractor defendants. This Court notes that City’s opposition does not appear to be an opposition a motion for leave to file FAC, but instead appears to be raising points that would be typically addressed in a demurrer or motion to strike. Plaintiffs are not adding the third cause of action – it was already present in their original complaint – and thus, raising issues of its insufficiency are not proper on this motion.

            Because the City filed an Answer rather that a demurrer to the original Complaint,  the grounds for the City’s opposition to a motion to change one defendant and add an allegation against another party is curious, but the changed allegation does seem to implicate the City’s vicarious liability concerns because of the allegation in paragraph 10 of the proposed FAC that City contracts with Fly Away Buse Service and that the proposed new defendant is “involved” in the operations of the Fly Away Bus service.  By making these amended allegations, Plaintiff accepts the risk that a party who previously answered would be given the opportunity to demur to the amended complaint.  With that understanding, the Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT the motion for leave to file the FAC, to order Plaintiff to file the FAC within 10 days as a stand-alone pleading rather than as an attachment to the motion, and to anticipate a demurrer shortly thereafter.  The Court thus will continue the CMC and discuss scheduling at the hearing. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File her First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, Plaintiff shall file the FAC within 10 days as a stand-alone pleading rather than as an attachment to the motion, and to discuss future CMC scheduling at the hearing.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.