Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV42527, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42527    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 29

Tova Siegel v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Tova Siegel

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Tova Siegel’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. Plaintiff argues Defendant City responded to discovery on June 3, 2022, stating that the tree whose roots uplifted the sidewalk is owned by the adjacent property owner, and not the City. Thus, Plaintiff learned for the first time that it had a cause of action against the adjacent property owner, and then reserved the first available hearing on this motion. Plaintiff now seeks to include causes of action for negligence against Fuller-Fountain, Inc., the owner of the adjacent property and owner of the tree whose roots most likely uplifted the sidewalk that plaintiff tripped on. Plaintiff argues there is no prejudice to the City or Fuller-Fountain, Inc., as the case is in its infancy, and the trial date is not until May 2023. Further, the City is not prejudiced by the addition of a new party on a different legal theory - rather the opposite. All parties will have ample time to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, and plaintiff is willing to continue the trial if either defendant needs more time to prepare for trial.

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 she discovered through the course of discovery in June of 2022 that she had a cause of action for negligence against Fuller Fountain, and reserved the first available hearing on this motion. 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. 

As Defendants have not opposed the motion for leave to amend, it does not appear they would be prejudiced by permitting this amendment. Further, trial is set for May of 2023; thus, there is sufficient time to conduct discovery, and Plaintiff is willing to continue trial if any defendant needs more time.

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.