Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV00678, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00678, Date: 2025-01-22 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: 23PSCV00678 Hearing Date: January 22, 2025 Dept: G

Plaintiff Luis Edgardo Hurtado Majano’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Defendant Esvin Aroldo Vasquez

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Luis Edgardo Hurtado Majano’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff Luis Edgardo Hurtado Majano is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Complaint separately with the Court forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff Luis Edgardo Hurtado Majano filed a complaint against Defendants Robert Antonio Keith, Esvin Aroldo Vasquez, and Does 1-50, alleging a sole cause of action for general negligence.

On January 8, 2024, the court entered default against Vasquez after Vasquez failed to timely file an answer. On June 18, 2024, the court entered default against Keith after Keith also failed to timely file an answer.

On July 25, 2024, Hurtado Majano and Vasquez stipulated to setting aside the entry of default against Vasquez.

On December 19, 2024, Hurtado Majano filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for January 22, 2025. A CMC/status conference re: ADR and OSC Re: Default Judgment Setting are also set for February 6, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Hurtado Majano seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that alleges an additional cause of action for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Hurtado Majano’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, Hurtado Majano’s counsel provides that the effect of the proposed FAC is to add a second cause of action for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle. (Katzman Decl., ¶ 7.) While Hurtado Majano’s counsel states counsel has discovered Vasquez was allegedly negligent in entrusting the subject vehicle to Keith, Hurtado Majano’s counsel fails to state when these facts were first discovered. (Katzman Decl., ¶ 4.) Nor does counsel explain why Hurtado Majano delayed in amending the Complaint with these facts. Nonetheless, because Hurtado Majano’s motion was brought within five months of Vasquez filing an answer to the original Complaint, any delay by Hurtado Majano in amending the Complaint appears minimal. Furthermore, while Hurtado Majano’s counsel fails to explicitly state why the proposed amendment is necessary and proper, counsel does claim the amendment provides specificity that will resolve any impediments to settlement and prevent unnecessary law and motion matters. (Katzman Decl., ¶ 10.)

In opposition, Vasquez argues the proposed amendment prejudices Vasquez because it asserts an entirely new cause of action based on entirety new factual allegations. (Opp., p. 8:21-26.) For the same reasons, Vasquez also argues the new cause of action is time-barred because the relation-back doctrine is inapplicable. (Opp., p. 6:19-8:11.) But both arguments fail as they misconstrue the effect of Hurtado Majano’s proposed amendment. In the initial Complaint, Hurtado Majano alleges that on March 12, 2021, in Los Angeles, Keith and Vasquez negligently caused damage to Hurtado Majano. (Complaint, p. 4.) The Complaint alleges “the parties were involved in a traffic accident” and that Defendant “breached the duty of care he owed to Plaintiff by acting in a manner that negligently caused Plaintiff to suffer severe personal injuries.” (Complaint, p. 4.)

In the proposed FAC, the additional cause of action for negligent entrustment alleges that Vasquez failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring or retaining Keith as a driver and entrusting Vasquez’s truck to Keith. (Proposed FAC, ¶ 12-14.) While these allegations provide additional detail and information, they do not assert a new cause of action as they arise from the same allegation that Vasquez acted in a manner that negligently caused Hurtado Majano injury on March 12, 2021. Although the initial Complaint does not clarify what these negligent acts were, the proposed FAC establishes they were Vasquez’s failure to properly vet Keith as a driver.

Vasquez also fails to establish how this amendment would prejudice Vasquez when trial has yet to be set and discovery has not yet commenced. (Katzman Suppl. Decl., ¶ 10-12.) In fact, the proposed amendment does the opposite as it clarifies the issues for any potential settlement or mediation discussions and allows Vasquez to avoid demurring to the initial Complaint.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Hurtado Majano’s motion.

CONCLUSION

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