Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV21916, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21916    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jacqueline deHavilland.

Tentative

The hearing on this motion is CONTINUED.

Background

On July 7, 2022, Jacqueline deHavilland (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against CPMC, INC dba Westhome Property Management, and Does 1 through 50 for Negligence and Premises Liability causes of action arising from a fall occurring on July 18, 2021.

Plaintiff died on September 7, 2022. Her successor-in-interest, April Silton and Heidi Arnold, now seek to amend the complaint to as they wish to proceed with the litigation.

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the motion for leave of the court to amend the complaint..

No opposition to this motion has been filed.

Legal Standard

CCP § 472(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.”

CCP § 473(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 CRC 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. 

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), 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

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the motion for leave of the court to amend the complaint. (Motion, 3:13-15.) There is no proof of service attached as this was filed three days before Defendant CPMC, Inc. filed their Answer.

Although Defendant has answered, no proof of service of this motion has been provided to the Court. As there is now an adverse party in this proceeding, they need notice of this motion.

As such, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motion for leave to amend so that moving party may give notice to the Defendant.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is CONTINUTED for at least 28 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve Defendant at least 16 court days before the heating and to file proof of service with the Court.

Any opposition and reply are due according to the Code with reference to the new hearing date.

Moving Party is to give notice.