Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 19STCV43266 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV43266, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43266 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Katherine Day, Revocable Trust of Victor J. Day, and Russell Day’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿473, subdivision¿(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party¿to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿¿(Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿¿(See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿

Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” [Citation.]’ ”]; Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 490.) Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Under¿California Rules of Court¿Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state 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 (3) state 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.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4)¿the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended complaint to add a cause of action against Defendant for breach of contract and to enhance the allegations relating to negligence. Plaintiffs argue that the parties agreed to stay the matter to allow insurance defense counsel to come into the case and provide the defense and indemnity benefits. Unfortunately, the claim was denied, and now that they have discovered there is no coverage, Plaintiffs seek to add the new allegations and cause of action. Defendant will not be prejudiced as trial is not set to commence until September 18, 2023, and only two depositions have been taken, which led to the dismissal of one defendant.

In opposition, Defendant argues that the amendment is not timely and is not the result of recently discovered information on the part of the Plaintiff. Since 2019, Plaintiffs have conducted very little discovery. The discovery that was conducted by way of written interrogatories and a pair of short depositions were conducted in and about January of 2021, over two years ago. Since that time, no additional discovery has been conducted by Plaintiff. The fact that Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with Amity was known by them well before they even filed the lawsuit.

The Court finds Plaintiff has generally complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed amended complaint and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. Plaintiff also generally explains that the parties had a joint stay in place pending the possibility of Defendant’s insurance coverage, and that is why Plaintiffs now move to add the breach of contract claim along with enhanced negligence allegations. The Court finds this is sufficient to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why it was not made earlier.

Despite Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs delayed in moving to amend their complaint, Defendant would also need to show that it was prejudiced by the amendment. Defendant has not argued it was, and the Court finds permitting Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint would not prejudice Defendant. First, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” (Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 490.) Moreover, trial is not until September 18, 2023, and thus, there is still ample time to conduct discovery. Similarly, as Defendant concedes, little discovery has been completed thus far, and as such, the parties still need to conduct discovery in any case.

Accordingly, the Court exercising its discretion liberally in favor of amendments, grants the motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file the complaint attached as Exhibit A within 10 days of this order.

Moving party is directed to give notice.