TENTATIVE RULING

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiff Jose Alejandro Rubio’s Motion to Amend the Complaint to Expand Upon the Allegations in Support of Claims for Punitive Damages Against Defendants, Also To Include Causes of Actions: For Personal Injury Based Upon Negligence, Premises Liability, Public Nuisance, Strick [sic] Liability, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and to Add Additional Defendants and DOE Defendants is GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiff to formally file the Proposed First Amended Complaint attached to his declaration within five (5) court days.

Clerk to give notice.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is a personal injury and/or property damage action. Plaintiff Jose Alejandro Rubio (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Stadco LA, LLC (“Defendant”).

Although the Complaint asserts that causes of action for General Negligence, Premises Liability, and “Emotional Distress, PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Pain and Suffering, Disable Since Accident Occurred,” are attached, no such causes of action are attached and the Complaint is devoid of any specific factual allegations; rather, the Complaint merely attaches images of what appear to be injuries to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s medical records.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend the Complaint to Expand Upon the Allegations in Support of Claims for Punitive Damages Against Defendants, Also To Include Causes of Actions: For Personal Injury Based Upon Negligence, Premises Liability, Public Nuisance, Strick [sic] Liability, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and to Add Additional Defendants and DOE Defendants (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add defendants and to allege additional allegations regarding Defendant’s alleged liability on the ground that there is good cause and the proposed First Amended Complaint (hereafter, the “Proposed FAC”), is based on the same general set of facts as the Complaint, refers to the same incident that occurred on or about October 8, 2023, and seeks recovery for the same injuries suffered by Plaintiff as alleged in the original Complaint.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Requirements

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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.

(Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1324(a).)

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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.

(Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)

Attached to the declaration of Jose Alejandro Rubio filed with the Motion is the Proposed FAC.

Defendant contends that the Motion should be denied on the ground that it is procedurally defective because Plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (Opposition, p. 1.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) because the Proposed FAC (1) “fails to serially number the paragraphs and/or differentiate it from the previous pleadings,” and (2) fails to “¿specify what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading and where by page, paragraph, line number the additional allegations are located.” (Id.)

The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the Motion should be denied because the Proposed FAC “fails to serially number the paragraphs and/or differentiate it from the previous pleadings.” (Opposition at p. 1.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a)(1) requires that the proposed amended complaint be “serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments.” (Cal. R. Ct., 3.1324(a)(1).) The Proposed FAC clearly indicates on the first page that it is the “First Amended Complaint.”

Given the way the operative Complaint is drafted, the Court also rejects Defendant’s argument that the Motion should be denied because the Proposed FAC fails to “¿specify what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading and where by page, paragraph, line number the additional allegations are located.” (Opposition at p. 1.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2) require the motion for leave to state, respectively, 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 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. (Cal. R. Ct., 3.1324(a)(1), (a)(2).)

However, the operative Complaint uses Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001 rather than lined, numbered pleading paper. California Rules of Court, rule 2.119 provides that the rules governing the formatting of papers, (see Cal. R. Ct., 2.100-2.119), “do not apply to Judicial Council forms….” (Cal. R. Ct., 2.119.) Moreover, the operative Complaint does not attach any causes of action, and is devoid of any specific factual allegations.

Thus, given the way the operative Complaint is drafted, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is able to “specify what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading and where by page, paragraph, line number the additional allegations are located.” (Opposition at p. 1.)

Defendant also argues that the Motion should be denied because “¿[t]he proposed FAC is difficult, if not, impossible to reference because there are no page numbers and the paragraphs are not numbered.” (Opposition at p. 1.)

The Court rejects Defendant’s argument. As an initial matter, Defendant does not cite to any legal authority. The only legal authority cited by Defendant is California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which does not require that proposed amended pleadings contain page numbers and/or paragraph numbers. The rules governing the formatting of papers, (see Cal. R. Ct., 2.100-2.119), do not require paragraph numbers. While California Rules of Court, rule 2.109 requires page numbers, and the proposed FAC does not contain page numbers, the Court does not find that this is a sufficient basis to deny the Motion. The Court does not find the failure to include page numbers/numbered paragraphs makes the proposed FAC “difficult, if not, impossible to reference” because there are line numbers and many headers. As such, and given that the Proposed FAC complies with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, the Court finds good cause to permit the filing of the Proposed FAC notwithstanding the failure to include page numbers. (Cal. R. Ct., 2.118 [“
For good cause shown, the court may permit the filing of papers that do not comply with the rules in this chapter.”].)

Defendant does not contend that the declaration of Jose Alejandro Rubio fails to satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), and the Court finds that the declaration of Jose Alejandro Rubio sufficiently complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b).

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the Motion should be denied on procedural grounds and proceeds to address the parties’ substantive arguments.

B. Analysis

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

The policy in California is that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend.” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 531.) “Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Here, Plaintiff argues leave to amend should be granted on the grounds that doing so would be in the interest of justice and would not prejudice Defendant, reasoning that the Proposed FAC is based on the same general set of facts as the Complaint, refers to the same incident that occurred on or about October 8, 2023, and seeks recovery for the same injuries suffered by Plaintiff as alleged in the original Complaint. (See Motion, pp. 11, 16-18; Jose Alejandro Rubio Decl., p. 3.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that granting leave to amend the Complaint would not prejudice Defendant. Trial has not yet been scheduled. Indeed, Defendant does not contend that it would be prejudiced, such as by way of delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.

Rather, Defendant argues that the Motion should be denied because the Proposed FAC fails to state a valid claim, including for punitive damages. (See Opposition at pp. 2-11.)

However, California courts have repeatedly held that, absent prejudice to the opposing party, it is an abuse of discretion to refuse permission to amend the complaint. (See, e.g., Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564–565) [“…it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”]; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 279, disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390 (citing Nelson v. Superior Court (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 78; Estate of Herbst (1938) 26 Cal.App.2d 249; Norton v. Bassett (1910) 158 Cal. 425, 427) [“If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”].)

While a court has discretion to deny leave to amend to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action, such denial is limited where the pleading is insufficient as a matter of law and cannot be cured by way of amendment. (See, e.g., Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 (citing Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048 [the “better course of action” is to grant leave to amend “and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”]; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 280-281 [where it is not established that the insufficiency cannot be cured by further appropriate amendment, “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.”]; Higgins, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at 564–565 (internal quotations omitted) [“In MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809…, the reason behind our liberal policy was stated as follows… : ‘If plaintiff has a good cause of action, which by accident or mistake he has failed to set out in his complaint, the court, on motion for judgment on the pleadings, should, on his application so to do, permit him to amend. ... The granting of the motion without leave to amend would in many cases be an absolute denial of justice, and is directly opposed to the policy of the law that cases should be tried and decided on the merits.’”].)

Indeed, in California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., cited by Defendant, while the Court of Appeal affirmed that “failure of a proposed amendment to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense may support an order denying a motion to amend,” it stated that such rule “would find its most appropriate application… in cases in which the insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent and where the insufficiency could not be cured by further appropriate amendment.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 280-281.)

Here, Defendant argues that the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action are insufficient to state a valid claim, (Opposition at pp. 4-6), and that the Proposed FAC fails to sufficiently allege a prima facie claim for punitive damages. (Id. at pp. 6-11.) However, Defendant does not argue that the First, Second, or Third Causes of Action are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the Court finds, for purposes of the instant Motion, that the Proposed FAC states at least one valid claim. Moreover, Defendant does not establish that Plaintiff cannot cure the defects with respect to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action or the punitive damages claim by way of an amendment to the Proposed FAC.

Therefore, given the lack of prejudice to Defendant, the Court finds that the best practice would be to permit Plaintiff to file the Proposed FAC, with Defendant then able to test the sufficiency of some or all of the claims by way of a demurrer, motion to strike, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other appropriate proceeding.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.