Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 210STCV45984, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 210STCV45984    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs’ 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

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend the complaint to allege new facts and legal theories after taking the deposition of Defendant SCI’s employee, Jose Morales on April 22, 2022. Morales testified that he was aware that the truck and trailer being driven by Phillips was grossly overloaded and could not make it up the hill as he stopped and talked to Phillips. The pickup was lifting up in the front from the weight. He testified that he knew that the truck and trailer could not make it up a hill that Phillips was trying to go up. At that time, all along the hill at various locations next to the road, people had parked. They were all in the zone of danger if the pickup and trailer lost control and came down the hill just as it did. Morales stopped Phillips and after having a conversation with him, gave Phillips directions where to drive up the hill. He also testified that he had the authority to stop Phillips as he was the park superintendent at the time. Plaintiffs argue that if Morales had just stopped Phillips from going up the hill, the accident would not have happened. They further argue that Morales showed a disregard to the safety of the visitors to the park in allowing the overloaded and undersized truck to attempt to go up the hill. Morales stated that he knew that the hill was too much for the truck. This information was not known prior to the deposition of Morales.

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 and deleted to the previous pleading.  Plaintiff also explains that it was recently discovered during Morales’ deposition, which was taken on April 22, 2022, that Morales knew the truck was overloaded and could have stopped Phillips. 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 September of 2023 and Plaintiffs are not seeking a trial continuance.

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 grants the motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

Conclusion

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

Moving party is directed to give notice.