Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV19063, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19063    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-22-24 a/f 2-26-24 (1-30-24 Minute Order)

Case # 20STCV19063

Trial Date: Vacated

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, M.N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Yolanda Keith, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to Amend to File a Fourth Amended Complaint

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff M.N.A., a non-verbal minor diagnosed with cerebral palsy and autism, received care from a licensed facility operated by defendant Yolanda Jenkins Keith, individually and dba Keith Family Child Care (Keith). Plaintiff alleges abusive conduct, including bare handed strikes on the head, back, neck and shoulders, and verbal abuse, occurred on the premises. Plaintiff further contends the government entity licensing entities were aware of prior complaints involving the facility, yet continued to allow the facility to operate.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiff M.N.A. through guardian ad litem Ashely Holmes filed a complaint for Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, Negligence; General Liability, Negligent Issuance and Renewal Of License, Violation of Mandatory Duties Imposed Bylaw, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Battery, and, Assault. On December 1, 2021, defendant Child Care Resources Center, Inc. answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint for Express Indemnity, Equitable Indemnity, Comparative Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief against Keith.

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Negligence General Liability, Negligent Issuance and Renewal of License, Violation of Mandatory Duties Imposed Bylaw, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Battery, and Assault. On June 21, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer of California Department of Social Services to the first amended complaint with 20 days leave to amend. On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint for Negligence - General Liability, Violation of Mandatory Duties Imposed by Law, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Battery, and Assault. On August 29, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer of California Department of Social Services to the second amended complaint with 30 days leave to amend.

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint for Negligence - General Liability, Violation of Mandatory Duties Imposed by Law, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Battery, and Assault. On November 29, 2022, court sustained the demurrer of California Department of Social Services and California Department of General Services to the third amended complaint without leave to amend. The court also granted the motion to strike of the respective defendants without leave to amend.

On January 11, 2023, the clerk entered a default against Keith. On December 20, 2023, the court granted the motion for summary judgment brought by defendant Child Care Resources Center, Inc.

The court entered judgment in favor of the State of California on December 20, 2023, and judgment in favor of Child Care Resources Center, Inc. on January 30, 2024.

RULING: Granted

Plaintiff M.N.A., a minor by and through guardian ad litem, Ashley Holmes, moves for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff moves for leave in order to add monetary damages as an element of the operative action—a necessary precursor to obtaining a default judgment against sole remaining defendant Yolanda Jenkins Keith, individually and dba Keith Family Child Care (Keith). The current operative complaint only states damages as “according to proof,” which would render any judgment voidable. The motion is unopposed; Keith may not file an opposition to the motion. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–386.)

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).

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.)

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.)

The motion was filed more than three years after the initial complaint. Counsel admits the delay was a result of oversight in the prior drafts of the complaint. [Declaration of George Pacheco.] The court finds the motion is sufficiently supported, and the delay lacking any showing of real prejudice given the default.

The motion is therefore granted. Moving party to file a separate copy of the fourth amended complaint within 10 days of the order. Nothing in the instant motion in any way relieves Plaintiff of the obligation to serve Keith with the amended pleading, and any statement of damages, as applicable, before seeking any default judgment.

The trial date remains vacated, but the court will set an OSC re: Default and Default Judgment at the time of the hearing.

Plaintiff to give notice.