Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV42346, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42346    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: 29

Elizabeth Sebuck v. SFMN, LLC dba Sole Bicycle

Tuesday, September 6, 2022 

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Elizabeth Sebuck’s motion for leave to amend the 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 amend the complaint because it contains an error in that it states: “Plaintiff was riding a skateboard when she was struck by one of Defendants employees causing injuries and damages.” However, Plaintiff was riding a bicycle, not a skateboard. In addition, Plaintiff has later learned that it the word “employee” did not encompass the possible status of the person who struck Plaintiff; therefore, Plaintiff seeks to amend the language to include “volunteers/agents/employees.” Last, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to encompass the DOE Amendments that were filed subsequent to the filing of the initial Complaint. Plaintiff did not discover the errors until the latter part of February 2022 while preparing discovery responses. Immediately after realizing the mistake, Plaintiff reserved the first available hearing date for the within Motion for Leave to Amend. The Motion hearing date was reserved on March 7, 2022; the first available date was September 6, 2022.

The Court finds Plaintiff has 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 explains that it was recently discovered that the complaint contained an error while preparing discovery, and that employee may not have encompassed the status of the defendant who struck Plaintiff. 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 May 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 amend the complaint. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. 

Moving party is directed to give notice.