Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV23571, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23571 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 29
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
This case arises out of a motor
vehicle accident on August 11, 2020. On July
20, 2022, Shahram Sadaghiani (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Julian
Levin and Does 1 through 10. On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the first
amended complaint, naming as defendants Aram Stepanyan and Does 1 to 10. (On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff purported to
file a second amended complaint, but the filing was rejected as Plaintiff had
not obtained leave from the court to file a second amended complaint.) On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff named Sharon
Ann Levin as Doe 1.
On March 23, 2023, Defendant Julian
Levin filed his answer to the First Amended Complaint. On December 13, 2023, Defendant Sharon Ann
Levin filed her answer to the First Amended Complaint.
On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed this
motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed SAC would: (1) add a cause of
action for general negligence; (2) change the address of the accident to Los
Angeles from Tarzana; (3) identify Julian Levin as the owner of the vehicle;
and (4) add a claim for lost earnings.
Defendants Julian Levin and Sharon
Levin (collectively “Defendants”) filed an opposition to the motion on March 20.
Plaintiff filed a reply on March 25.
Trial is scheduled for September 3,
2024.
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
As a
threshold matter, the Court will consider the late-filed opposition submitted
by Defendants.
Plaintiff
requests leave to amend their complaint to add a general negligence cause of
action, as well as to correct the city of the incident from Tarzana to Los
Angeles, to add a claim of loss earnings, and to identify Defendant Julian as
the owner of the vehicle. (Motion, 3:17-21.) A copy of the amendment is
attached as Exh. A.
Counsel
for Plaintiff states that the deficiencies in the earlier pleading were the
result of errors in the office of previous counsel. (Paley Decl., ¶ 4.)
The
Court finds that all of the substantive and procedural requirements have been
met. Plaintiff has not unreasonably
delayed, and the proposed amendments would not cause Defendants to suffer any
undue or unfair prejudice. The proposed
amendment does not substantially alter the scope of Plaintiff’s claims in an
unfair manner, and there remains sufficient time before trial for all parties to
investigate and conduct discovery into Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’
defenses.
Accordingly,
the motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.
The
Court GRANTS LEAVE to Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint attached to
its moving papers within 10 days of the hearing.
Moving
Party is to give notice.