Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03615, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03615, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03615 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Mingming Huo’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Mingming Huo’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Mingming Huo 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. In December 2021, Plaintiff Mingming Huo was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Yang Zhao on State Route 60 in El Monte.

On November 17, 2023, Huo filed a complaint against Yuquing Ai, the Estate of Zhao (Zhao Estate), and Does 1-25, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) reckless gross negligence per se, and (3) gross negligent entrustment.

On September 26, 2024, Huo filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for November 12, 2024, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Huo seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that (1) removes the Zhao Estate from the present action, (2) alleges Ai is Zhao’s personal representative, (3) removes a request for punitive damages, (4) alleges additional facts to support a claim for damages, and (5) alleges additional facts to support the allegation that Zhao’s breached a duty of care. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Huo’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, Huo’s counsel provides that the effect of the FAC is to properly plead the basis for Huo’s causes of action and establish Ai as the personal representative for Zhao. (Braun Decl., ¶ 19.) Huo’s counsel states they first discovered the status of Zhao’s estate on June 11, 2024, when they received a declaration from Ai’s counsel and were unsuccessful in multiple attempts to obtain a stipulation from Ai’s counsel. (Braun Decl., ¶ 8-18.) Huo’s counsel also states this amendment is necessary and proper to put the case at issue. (Braun Decl., ¶ 19.) In response, Ai failed to file a timely opposition. Based on the declaration of Huo’s counsel and in absence of any opposition, the court finds Huo established good cause for the present amendment.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Huo’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Huo’s motion for leave to file a FAC is GRANTED and Huo is ordered to file the proposed FAC, attached as Exhibit 1 to Huo’s motion, separately with the court forthwith.