Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV03040, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV03040, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV03040 Hearing Date: January 15, 2025 Dept: G

Plaintiff Theodore Thomas Cucuro’s Motion for Leave to File A Second Amended Complaint for Damages

Respondent: Defendant Doe Association 1

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Theodore Thomas Cucuro’s Motion for Leave to File A Second Amended Complaint for Damages is GRANTED. Plaintiff Theodore Thomas Cucuro is ordered to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint separately with the Court forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for childhood sexual assault. On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff Theodore Thomas Cucuro filed a complaint against Defendants Doe Association 1, Doe Association 2, Doe Association 3, Doe National Counsel, Doe Perpetrator, and Does 6-50, alleging causes of action for (1) sexual assault of a minor and (2) negligence.

On November 27, 2023, Cucuro filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On December 21, 2023, Cucuro dismissed Doe Association 3.

On December 11, 2024, Cucuro filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for January 15, 2025, along with a further case management conference and OSC Re: Default Judgment Setting as to Doe Perpetrator.

ANALYSIS

Cucuro seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that adds Doe Association 4 as a defendant. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Cucuro’s motion.

Legal Standard

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “A motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and [s]tate what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The declaration must also specify the amendment’s effect, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts supporting the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

If the party seeking the amendment has needlessly delayed, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Discussion

In this case, Cucuro’s counsel seeks the proposed amendment based upon recently uncovered facts. (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 5-7.) During a deposition on June 3, 2024, the Doe Perpetrator stated the Doe Perpetrator had volunteered as a junior leader for the San Bernardino YMCA when the Doe Perpetrator was 15 or 16 years old. (McIntosh Suppl. Decl., Ex. A, p. 10:5-17.) Cucuro’s counsel states this testimony establishes the Doe Perpetrator was involved with another Doe Association when the alleged molestation took place and proposes adding the Doe Associating as a defendant. (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 5-7; McIntosh Suppl. Decl., ¶ 3-5.) On July 1, 2024, Cucuro sought a stipulation from the other Defendants and circulated a draft copy of the SAC on July 15, 2024. (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 8-9.) In September 2024, Doe Association 1 notified Cucuro that they would not stipulate to allowing Cucuro’s amendment. (McIntosh Decl., ¶ 10.)

In opposition, Doe Association 1 opposes Cucuro’s amendment on the grounds that the same deposition testimony from the Doe Perpetrator allegedly exonerates other defendants. But even if that is true, such arguments are better raised and addressed in a separate motion for summary judgment or adjudication.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Cucuro’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Cucuro’s motion for leave to file a SAC is GRANTED and Cucuro is ordered to file the proposed SAC separately with the court forthwith.