Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV11589, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV11589, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11589 Hearing Date: October 23, 2024 Dept: 29

James v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
23STCV11589
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On May 23, 2023, Plaintiff Christopher James filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”), City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California Department of Transportation, State of California, MV Transportation, Inc., John Doe, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence, arising out of a collision that occurred on June 8, 2022 between Plaintiff’s vehicle and a bus operated by a Metro employee.

On May 31, 2024, Metro filed an answer.

On June 24, 2024, MV Transportation filed an answer.

On September 26, 2024, Metro filed this motion for leave to file an amended answer. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 10, and Metro filed an untimely reply on October 17.

On filing, the case was assigned a trial date of November 19, 2024. On the stipulation of the parties submitted October 4, 2024, the trial date was continued to April 11, 2025.

Legal Standard

California 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).)¿

“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 759-761.) 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.)

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.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿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.¿

Discussion

Defendant Metro seeks a court order permitting it to file an Amended Answer to add an affirmative defense under Civil Code section 3333.4, which precludes an uninsured plaintiff from recovering non-economic damages under certain circumstances. On July 31, 2024, after receiving Plaintiff’s discovery responses, Metro learned that facts to support this new affirmative defense.

Metro has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed Amended Answer and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. (Rubin Decl., Exh. J.) Metro also explains that it discovered the applicability of this additional defense after receiving Plaintiff’s discovery responses in July 2024. This is sufficient to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why it was not made earlier.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues he would be prejudiced by the amendment and that Defendant delayed.

Although it is true “a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it,” it remains the case that “where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147; see also Kittredge Sports co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545.)

Unfair prejudice may arise, for example, where the party unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 (“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”).)

The Court has considered the evidence and argument from both sides and finds that Plaintiff would not suffer any unfair prejudice from the requested relief. Although trial was initially set for November 2024, the Court recently continued the trial date to April 11, 2025. Plaintiff will have adequate time to prepare his case in light of the newly added affirmative defense. Further, Defendant was appeared only in May and sought the relief four months later, obtained the new information on July 31, and filed this motion less than two months later; there has been, on these facts, no unreasonable delay, and certainly no prejudicial delay, by Metro.

In view of the well-established liberality with which amendments are to be allowed, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Metro’s motion for leave to file an amended answer.

The Court GRANTS Metro LEAVE to file the Amended Answer attached to the moving papers within 5 days of the hearing.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.