Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV20196, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20196    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 3-28-23

Case #21STCV20196 c/w 21STCV22844

TRIAL DATE: 11-6-23 c/f 4-3-23

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Chad Perrigo, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Montecristo Trucking, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to Amend

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 28, 2021, plaintiff Chad Perrigo was involved in a motorcycle-truck collision with defendant Jorge Edmondo Castaneda Rodriguez. Plaintiff alleges Rodriguez was operating his vehicle on behalf of defendants MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, Fernando Escolero, and Fames Transport, Inc. for the United States Postal Service.

On May 28, 2021, the Perrigos filed their complaint for motor vehicle, general negligence, and loss of consortium. On June 21, 2021, the Perrigos filed a first amended complaint (21STCV20196).

On June 18, 2021, County of Los Angeles filed a complaint against Jorge Edmondo Castaneda Rodriguez, MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, Fernando Escolero, and Fames Transport, Inc. dba Nevada Fames Transport, Inc. for motor vehicle (21STCV22844).

On September 8, 2021, the court deemed Perrigo, et al. v. Rodriguez, et al., 21STCV20196 related to 21STCV22844.

On January 20, 2022, the court granted the Perrigos’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On February 7, 2022, the Perrigos filed their second amended complaint for negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, dangerous condition of public property, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs also added the State of California and City of Santa Clarita as defendants.

On March 1, 2022, the court consolidated the actions. On March 10, 2022, the court granted the motion to transfer the consolidated actions. On March 11, 2022, the court transferred the action from Department 32 to Department 47. On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff County of Los Angeles filed peremptory challenge to Department 47. The action was assigned to Department 49 on March 30, 2022.

On April 8, 2022, the City of Santa Clarita filed a cross-complaint against Jorge Edmondo Castaneda Rodriguez, MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, Fernando Escolero, and Fames Transport, Inc. for implied equitable indemnity, contribution/apportionment, and declaratory relief. On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the State of California.

RULING: Granted

Plaintiffs Chad and Alexa Perrigo move for leave to file a third amended complaint. The proposed third amended seeks to add new party Thunder Ridge Transport, Inc., as well as new allegations against existing defendants Fames Transport, Inc., MonteCristo Trucking, LLC, and Castaneda. The motion comes following the discovery of new facts in discovery identifying Thunder Ridge Transport, Inc., as the “prime” contractor, and Fames Transport, Inc., as the “subcontractor.” The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply to the motion. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition on March 22, 2023, as well.

A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

“(a)      Contents of motion

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.

(b)        Supporting declaration

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…” (emphasis added).

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) The court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

The motion complies with the California Rules of Court regarding the proposed changes, including identification of the proposed allegation—Paragraph 19. [Declaration of Khail Parris Ex. 5.] The proposed additions add significant allegations regarding the contracts, fatigued driving, alleged regulatory violations, descriptions of the crash, including a photo, and a punitive damages section.

The court finds Plaintiffs also comply with the diligence requirement. It’s not clear exactly when Plaintiffs discovered the new parties and information, but the court appreciates the prior referral to a discovery referee, and accepts the representation of diligence. [Parris Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.] Given the parties latest stipulation to continue the trial date, the court finds a lack of prejudice for purposes of the current motion.

The motion otherwise lacks any challenge to the addition of Thunder Ridge Transport, Inc., as a new party. Any challenges to the quality of the allegations are otherwise the subject matter of post-leave law and motion, within the parties’ discretion.

Plaintiff is ordered to separately file the third amended complaint, with Thunder Ridge Transport, Inc., also identified in the caption.

Motions for summary judgment reserved for August 31 and September 28, 2023, respectively.

Plaintiff to give notice to all parties.