Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV38747, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV38747, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38747 Hearing Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jack Parker.

Tentative

The motion for leave to amend is granted.

Background

This case arises out of an alleged assault at a nightclub on May 7, 2022. On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff Jack Parker (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Potions & Poisons, Inc., Oxford Center, Solomon Kim, Sara H. Kim, and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Does 1 through 50; and asserts against all defendants causes of action for negligence, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, premises liability, and false imprisonment.

Defendants Potions & Poisons, Inc., Solomon Kim, and Sara H. Kim filed their Answer on January 26, 2023.

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Joshua Marcus Wilson as Doe 1.

Defendant Oxford Center, LLC (erroneously sued as Oxford Center) (“Oxford”) filed its Answer on May 12, 2023.

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the proposed FAC, Plaintiff seeks to add factual allegations specific to Oxford in the negligence and premises liability causes of action and to remove Oxford as a defendant in the causes of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention and false imprisonment.

Oxford filed its opposition to the motion on December 29. Plaintiff filed his reply on January 5, 2024.

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 an otherwise proper amendment may not be permitted if there has been a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay that causes prejudice to the opposing party. Among the factors that a court may consider are (1) the diligence or 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

In the proposed FAC, Plaintiff seeks to remove Oxford as a defendant on the Fifth Cause of Action (for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention) and the Seventh Cause of Action (for false imprisonment). Plaintiff also seeks to remove the prayer for punitive damages as against Oxford and the Doe defendants. The Court assumes that Oxford has no objection to these proposed amendments.

Plaintiff also seeks to add specific factual allegations against Oxford in the Fourth Cause of Action (for negligence) and Sixth Cause of Action (for premises liability). Paraphrasing, the gist of the new allegations is that Oxford acted negligently in not requiring its commercial tenant, defendant Potions & Poisons, Inc., to provide proof of insurance coverage that would apply to the injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff.

Courts are directed to exercise liberality in granting motions for leave to amend. Here, Plaintiff has shown a sufficient basis to amend his complaint and is in compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.1324.

Accordingly, leave to amend is granted.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to their motion within 10 days.

Moving Party is to give notice.