Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV05125 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV05125, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV05125 Hearing Date: August 16, 2022 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Lisa Wilberg’s motion for leave to file a First 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).)¿

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

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a file amended complaint (FAC) to add a cause of action for strict products liability against Defendants Estee Lauder and Aveda, after the deposition of Duran, DLP’s employee who applied the dye to Plaintiff’s scalp, was taken. Plaintiff’s hairstylist testified that she followed all the manufacturers’ directions in the application of the hair dye, and thus, it became apparent to Plaintiff’s counsel that there was potential fault against the hair dye product itself for not being manufactured and/or designed properly, or did not contain proper warning, and was a potential cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff reserved the first available hearing date for his motion after amending the complaint to name the manufacturers of the hair dye, Estee Lauder and Aveda.

The Court finds Plaintiff has generally complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed FAC and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. Plaintiff also explains that it was recently discovered that they had a cause of action for strict products liability after taking the deposition of Duran. 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. Further, trial is set for February of 2023.

As Defendants have not opposed the motion for leave to amend, it does not appear they would be prejudiced by permitting this amendment.

Accordingly, the Court exercising its discretion liberally in favor of amendments, grants the motion for leave to file a FAC.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party is directed to give notice.