Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Cross-Complaint and Amended Answer filed by Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority dba Metrolink

TENTATIVE

Defendant Metrolink’s motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint and an amended answer 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).)¿ 

“ ‘[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.’ (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 759-761.) 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.¿ 

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

Discussion

Defendant Metrolink seeks a court order permitting it to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint and an Amended Answer.Metrolink seeks to make the following edits to its Cross-Complaint (1) amend the cause of action for Declaratory Relief on the basis that the Release covers all claims that were or could have been raised in this lawsuit and entitled Metrolink to declaratory relief; and (2) add plaintiff Porsha Bryant as a Cross-Defendant. Metrolink also seeks to amend its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint to allege additional affirmative defenses involving preemption, sudden emergency, release and intervening/superseding cause. Metrolink argues it recently discovered that on June 18, 2021, Plaintiff had signed a general “Release of claims for Bodily Injury.” In April of 2022, Metrolink identified additional arguments and defenses and the necessity of amending the pleadings. Metrolink argues that leave to amend should be granted because Plaintiff, Mendoza and Blanca will not suffer any prejudice as a result of the amendment. The proposed FACC and First Amended Answer alleges additional legal theories supporting Metrolink’s defense, rights and entitlements. Additionally, Metrolink argues there is no radical change in the principal theory of Metrolink’s case stated against Plaintiff, Mendoza and Blanca.

Metrolink has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed Amended Answer and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading.  (Maurice Decl., Ex. A.)  Metrolink also explains that it was recently discovered the release signed by Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants and that its counsel only recently became involved in this case and filed a motion for leave to amend after reviewing the file thereafter. 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. 

The Court finds Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments in this case. Trial is set for March 6, 2023, and discovery is in its early stages. Many defendants have not yet been served with the complaint, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants have taken no depositions, and Plaintiff has only propounded one set of initial discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants still has time to conduct discovery in relation to Defendant’s first amended cross complaint and newly added affirmative defenses in preparing for trial. As discovery is in its early stages, there will be little to no additional costs. As for Plaintiff’s and Cross-Defendants’ arguments over the merits of the amendments, the Court declines to consider the merits in determining whether to permit the amendments. Instead, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants may elect to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings to clearly outline the bases for their arguments in order for the Court to make a reasoned determination. 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. (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).)¿ 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Metrolink’s motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint and an amended answer is GRANTED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.