Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV32608, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32608    Hearing Date: November 6, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

 

Defendant City’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. 

 

Background

 

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a dangerous uprooted portion of a walkway in the City of Los Angeles.  On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles.

 

On October 22, 2021, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed an answer to the original Complaint.

 

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Paramount Pictures Corp. alleging (1) Government Entity Negligence (GC §835); (2) negligence; and (3) premises liability.

 

On September 29, 2023, City of Los Angeles filed the instant motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer.  No opposition has been filed as of November 1, 2023. 

 

Legal Standard

 

“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.” (CCP §472.)

 

“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.”  (CCP §473(a)(1).)

 

The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified:  "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."  (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 (emphasis added).)  Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint "at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial," absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

 

Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence or added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)  Delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial of leave of amend.  If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial.  (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)

 

Discussion

 

Defendant City attaches the proposed amended answer as Exhibit A to the declaration of defense counsel and shows sufficient cause for the amendment.  (Motion, Gonzalez Dec., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.)  No oppositions have been filed and no one claims prejudice if leave to amend were granted.  The trial date is set for April 16, 2024, approximately six months away.  The amended answer only includes one additional affirmative defense.  (Id.)  Under these circumstances, good cause is shown to grant the motion. 

 

Defendant City’s motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED.   

 

Conclusion

 

The Court GRANTS Defendant City’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer.

 

Defendant City is given leave to file and serve the amended answer submitted with the moving papers within 10 days of this order.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.