Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00170, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00170    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE:                 May 16, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                  24TRCV00170

CASE NAME:                        Karin Friedman v. Anthony Cavuoti, LMFT, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Karin Friedman

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants, Anthony Cavuoti, LMFT, Carellon Behavioral Health of CA, Inc., et al. (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

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

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual 

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff, Karin Friedman (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Anthony Cavuoti, LMFT, Carellon Behavioral Health of CA, Inc., and DOES 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Professional Negligence; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (3) Negligent Hiring.  On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: : (1) Professional Negligence; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (3) Negligent Selection of an Independent Contractor.

Now, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (erroneously entitled “Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint”)

B. Procedural 

On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and file Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS 

            Prelminarily, this Court notes that although Plaintiff’s Motion is entitled “Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint,” this Court notes that because Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint already, on March 5, 2024, that this is actually Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

A.    Legal Standard

 Leave to amend is permitted under the 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 she is originally filed this case on January 23, 2024, and acted with expediency when filing her original FAC. She notes that she received Defendant Carellon’s meet and confer correspondence regarding their potential demurrer to the FAC on April 2, 2024. The Plaintiff notes that the parties spoke via telephone on April 10, 2024, and the parties agreed Plaintiff would seek leave to amend her pleading. Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel, Robert J. Lisky, filed a declaration indicating what allegations are to be added and where, and what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment, and why it was not made earlier (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) Although new evidence was not per se found out, Plaintiff did become aware of a demurrer that would be filed by the Carellon Defendant, and claims that the parties agreed that Plaintiff would amend her pleading. This Court also notes that Plaintiff did move expeditiously in amending her pleading.

            Also, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, this Court notes that the motion and declaration include: (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to page and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration by Robert J. Liskey that specifies the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments.

            Because no opposition has been filed, and according to Plaintiff, the parties agree that Plaintiff should amend, the Court GRANTS this motion pursuant to the policy of great liberality in permitting amendments.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File her Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The Second Amended Complaint shall be filed forthwith as a stand-alone document, not as an attachment or exhibit to the motion.  Defendant’s responsive pleading shall be filed within 30 days of service of this ruling as per the parties stipulation which the Court approved on May 14, 2024.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.