Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV00180, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV00180 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: F49
Dept. F-49
Date: 10-11-23 a/f 12-18-23 (9-1-23 ex parte order)
Case # 23CHCV00180
Trial Date: 6-24-24
LEAVE TO AMEND
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sylvia Arakel
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Felice Berg
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff Sylvia Arkel was involved
in an automobile collision with defendant Felice Berg. On January 23, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a complaint for Motor Vehicle and General Negligence. On March
29, 2023, Berg answered and filed a cross-complaint against Arkel for indemnity
and declaratory relief. On September 14, 2023, Arkel answered the
cross-complaint.
RULING: Granted.
Plaintiff Sylvia
Arket moves for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to add a claim
for loss of consortium and plaintiff Carlo Arakel as a party to the action.
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 based on a “stipulation” of the parties
(notwithstanding the motion), plus a copy of the proposed amended complaint.
The court also finds the motion was diligently filed following updated medical
information from the treating physicians. [Declaration of Manee Pazargad.]
The court finds no basis of any legally barred amendment
preventing leave. The unopposed motion is granted.
Trial remains set for June 24, 2024.
Plaintiff to give notice.