Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV00230, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00230    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 29

Hilecher v. City of Los Angeles
22STCV00230
Motion of City of Los Angeles for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint

Tentative

Motion is granted.

Background

On January 4, 2022, Marcy Hilecher (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Does 1 through 15 for general negligence and premises liability causes arising out of an incident on January 7, 2020, in which, Plaintiff alleges, she was injured while trying to move a damaged trash bin that was left in Plaintiff’s driveway by a City employee.

On June 26, 2023, City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 10.

On March 17, 2025, City amended its cross-complaint to name Rehrig Pacific Company (“RPC”) as Roe 1.

On April 17, 2025, RPC filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name RPC as Doe 1.

On May 1, 2025, City filed this motion for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).

On May 12, 2025, the Court received (but did not file) the FACC.

On May 19, 2025, RPC filed a notice of non-opposition.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a) provides “[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.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “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.” 

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for 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.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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. 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b), requires that 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. 

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.  (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.)

Discussion

City seeks leave to file the FACC.  City seeks to add an additional cause of action for breach of contract alleging that RPC failed to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its employees based on an agreement entered into on July 2, 2019.

City has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.  The substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied.

The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion of City of Los Angeles for leave to file the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

The Court GRANTS City of Los Angeles LEAVE to file the First Amended Cross-Complaint by no later than June 13, 2025.

Moving Party is to give notice.