Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 21AVCV00694, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AVCV00694 Hearing Date: May 2, 2023 Dept: A14
Background
This is a Premises Liability action.
Plaintiff Amelia Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Jason Medina
(“Defendant”) owned, possessed, leased, maintained, operated, supervised,
managed, and otherwise controlled the residence located at 2214 W Ave. K12,
Lancaster, CA 93536 (the “Premises”) and that the following occurred on or
about May 16, 2020:
·
Defendant
had a gathering of people that he invited to the Premises;
·
Plaintiff
was one of the people invited to the Premises;
·
At
approximately 5:00 pm, Defendant negligently and without due care created a
situation at the Premises that caused people to uncontrollably rush to leave
the premises, creating a defective, unsafe, and hazardous condition (i.e., a trap);
and
·
Plaintiff
was walking up to the Premises when the aforementioned incident occurred,
causing her to be trampled by the people that were rushing to leave the
Premises.
Plaintiff further alleges that she suffered
significant physical injuries which result in her incurring the claimed general
and specific damages.
On September 09, 2021, Plaintiff filed her
Complaint, alleging one cause of action for Negligence/Premises
Liability.
On October 25, 2021, Defendant filed his
Answer.
On October 13, 2022, Defendant filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, subsequently denied on December 29, 2022.
On April 06, 2023, Plaintiff filed this
Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint to Add Punitive Damages
(“Motion for Leave to Amend”).
Defendant filed his Opposition on April 21,
2023, including evidentiary objetion. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed
shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine
court days. . .before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) “Section
1013, which extends the time within which a right may be exercised or an act
may be done, does not apply to a notice of motion, papers opposing a motion, or
reply papers governed by this section.” (Ibid.) The hearing for this matter
is set for May 02, 2023. Accordingly, an Opposition was due by April 19, 2023. Defendant’s
Opposition is untimely. “No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that
it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses
to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).) The Court, in its discretion, does not
consider the late filed papers.
No Reply has been filed.
-----
Legal Standard
Standard for Leave to Amend – “A party may amend its pleading once
without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion
to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before
the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and
served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or
motion to strike. A party may amend the pleading after the date for filing an
opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike, upon stipulation by the parties.
The time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date
of service of the amended pleading.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 472(a).)
Trial courts may, in furtherance of justice
and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Cal. Code Civ.
Proc., §473(a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) Trial courts may also, in their discretion and
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. (Cal.
Code Civ. Proc., §473(a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) Leave to
amend is generally liberally granted, provided there is no statute of
limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.)
Additionally, “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.) Trial courts may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if
there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of
critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Branic, supra, at
242.)
Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324,
a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (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 of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting
declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment
was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., Rule
3.1324(b).)
-----
Discussion
Application – As an
initial matter, the Court reminds Plaintiff that electronically filed documents
are to be text searchable. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.74(a)(1).)
Plaintiff requests leave to amend
the Complaint to add punitive damages. This change includes the addition of a
declaration by Pete Rodriguez, Plaintiff’s husband; a incident report from the
incident; and a deposition of Officer Kenneth Towls. (See Exh. A.)
Plaintiff has followed Cal. Rules
of Court, Rule 3.1324(a):
·
Plaintiff
has included a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must
be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments
(See Exhs. 1 and 2);
·
Plaintiff
states there are no deletions;
·
Plaintiff states that she added paragraphs 11,
13-19, and 27 and addresses the page,
paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located via Exh. 2,
a red-lined version of the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Counsel for Plaintiff, Michael K.
Teiman (“Teiman”), has included with the Motion for Leave to Amend a separate supporting declaration specifying
(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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must
accompany the motion pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).)
Plaintiff presents that the delay
in requesting leave to amend the Complaint is due to (1) Plaintiff’s discovery
of the facts precipitating the proposed amendments during discovery, and (2)
Plaintiff had to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and needed
time to prepare the appropriate documents. Plaintiff argues that the Court
should grant her leave to amend because California law recognizes that
Plaintiff is allowed great liberality in amending her pleading; Plaintiff
should be able to assert all available remedies against Defendant; no prejudice
would result to Defendant; and Plaintiff has complied with Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff contends that her amendments seek to add in actions by
Defendant which show malice in the form of conscious disregard of the safety
and injury of others that would result from his conduct.
However, despite Plaintiff’s
presentation, the basis for the amendment has been available to Plaintiff since
the initiation of the action. Specifically:
·
Plaintiff was at the Premises during this
incident;
·
Plaintiff relies on the declaration of her
husband, Pete Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) for the amendment, originally submitted
for the Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Exh. A.) Rodriguez’s information was
available to Plaintiff as of the date of the incident;
·
Plaintiff relied on the police incident report
for the amendment. The incident report was available as of May 16, 2020. (See
Exh. B.) The Court notes for the purpose of this litigation, Plaintiff
subpoenaed the incident report on January 04, 2022, requesting the documents by
February 08, 2022. (Ibid.)
The deposition of Officer Kenneth
Towels (“Towels”) was taken on October 13, 2022. (Exh. C.)
The Court notes that the deposition
of Towels and the incident report primarily concern Victim Olivia and the
domestic violence directed at her, not Plaintiff. Further, they do not shed
more information regarding the incident than what was known to Plaintiff at the
time of filing the Complaint. That is, Plaintiff has been aware that Defendant
was drinking during the incident and the items relied on for this Motion for
Leave to Amend the Complaint is based on either (1) knowledge that was readily
available to Plaintiff at the time of the filing (i.e., husband’s declaration)
or (2) information that does not shed further information on the incident as it
relates to Plaintiff (i.e., incident report and deposition of Towels).
The Court also notes that trial
is set for June 09, 2023, less than two months out. A motion for summary
judgment has already been heard and ruled on.
“ ‘ “[T]he trial court has wide
discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading [citations], [and] as a
matter of policy the ruling of the trial court in such matters will be upheld
unless a manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown. [Citations.]” ’ (Record
v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486 [86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547].)
Nevertheless, it is also true that courts generally should permit amendment to
the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Atkinson
v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433]; Magpali
v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 [55 Cal. Rptr. 2d
225].) But this policy applies ‘ “only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the
adverse party.’ ” ’ (Atkinson v. Elk Corp., supra, 109
Cal.App.4th at p. 761.) Moreover, ‘ “ ‘even
if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting
it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’ ” ’ (Huff v. Wilkins
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 754] (Huff); see Record
v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 486.) Thus, appellate courts
are less likely to find an abuse of discretion where, for example, the proposed
amendment is ‘ “offered after long unexplained delay … or where there is a lack
of diligence … .” ’ (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1150,
1159 [267 Cal. Rptr. 523].)” (Melican v. Regents of University of California
(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.)
Further, trial courts should not
allow eleventh-hour amendments that greatly increase the amount and nature of
damages, based on a different theory of the case. (See Duchrow v. Forrest
(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1380-1382 (“Duchrow”) [the complaint
pleaded damages of $44,082, but the proposed amendment at trial sought
$365,044].) Such an amendment prejudices the defendant, who may have conducted
discovery differently, including the retention of experts. Had it been known
from the outset that he was facing far greater damages, he might have settled
the case before trial. (Ibid.)
Though Plaintiff in this action
is not requesting an amendment midtrial, it is still the eve of trial. However,
the information this amendment is based on was available to Plaintiff before
she filed her Complaint on September 02, 2021. The record supports findings
that Defendant would face unanticipated financial exposure from punitive
damages, or would have conducted discovery, or would have settled the case
before trial, had he known that Plaintiff was going to seek at trial to add new
claims justifying punitive damages.
Further, Plaintiff’s explanation
for the delay does not address why a proposed amendment to exponentially
increase damages was not made earlier. The Motion for Summary Judgment was
filed October 13, 2022 and, unlike Plaintiff presentation, the information was
available to her prior to discovery. (See discussion of relied upon exhibits
for the amendment, ante.) Plaintiff had over year to amend her
pleadings.
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
-----
Conclusion