Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV16849, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV16849    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: 29

Osornio-Cano v. Clark
22STCV16849
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On May 20, 2022, Alejandro Osorio-Cano and Janet Cruz filed a complaint against Karen Agnes Clark, Steven Blum, and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on May 23, 2020 on Pacific Coast highway in Santa Monica.

On July 11, 2023, Defendants Karen Agnes Clark and Steven Blum filed an answer.

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff Alejandro Osorio-Cano filed a request to dismiss his claims.

On September 11, 2024, Plaintiff Janet Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed a request to dismiss Defendant Steven Blum.

On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendant Karen Agnes Clark (“Defendant”) filed an opposition on April 24, and Plaintiff filed a reply on April 30.

Legal Standard

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 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.  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.)

Objections to Evidence

Defendant asserts 12 objections to the declaration of Stefano G. Formica. The Court OVERRULES the objections.  Although the statements of counsel are not admissible evidence as to the underlying facts, in connection with a motion for leave to amend a complaint plaintiff’s counsel is permitted to testify regarding (among other things) counsel’s understanding of the underlying facts in order to satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the first amended complaint to add allegations of negligence per se (within the motor vehicle negligence cause of action); to add a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and to add a claim for punitive damages.  The procedural requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 are satisfied.

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing Plaintiff had three years to amend her complaint, and filed this motion a mere three months before trial. Defendant contends she will be prejudiced by the amendment as there will likely be a demurrer and motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Further, Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff, and has been unable to question Plaintiff as to the amended complaint, which does add a new cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Given the liberal standard for a leave to amend, the motion is granted.  Defendant’s concerns about the potential prejudice from the upcoming trial date can be fully addressed through a motion to continue trial (if needed and if good cause is shown), and the potential prejudice from the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition can be fully addressed through a reopening of Plaintiff’s deposition (if needed, by agreement or, if no agreement is forthcoming then through a noticed motion showing a sufficient basis).

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Janet Cruz’s motion for leave to file the amended complaint.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff LEAVE to file the First Amended Complaint submitted with the moving papers by no later than May 14, 2025.

Moving Party to give notice.