Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV19098, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV19098, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19098 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiffs the Estate of Bing Wang, by and through its Successor-in-Interest Xiaomei Wang, Xiaomei Wang, and Wenxuan Wang.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

The case arises out of a fatal automobile accident on June 7, 2023, on La Cienega Boulevard in the Pico-Robertson area of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs The Estate of Bing Wang (by and through its successor-in-interest Xiaomei Wang), Xiaomei Wang, and Wenxuan Wang (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint in this action on August 10, 2023, asserting causes of action for wrongful death/negligence, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium against Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”), Vladimir Tishchenko (“Tishchenko”), and Does 1 through 10.

DoorDash and Tishchenko filed their Answers to the Complaint on September 26 and October 17, 2023.

On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to amend the complaint to add punitive damages.

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

Plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint to add punitive damages and facts to support “Defendants’ conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety.” (Motion, 6:25-25.) Plaintiffs contend the motion is timely, as it comes after completing the depositions of key witnesses including Defendant Vladimir Tishchenko. (Id., 9:1-3.) They also argue the amendment will not prejudice parties as trial is still over a year from now and there is time to adequately prepare for trial. (Id., 9:9-12.) Lastly, the amendments are permissible as they arise out of the same events/injury to Plaintiffs, are in furtherance of justice and judicial expediency, and “California courts have consistently held that such amendments should be liberally permitted.” (Id., 9:13-17.)

Plaintiffs include as Exhibit 12 a copy of the First Amended Complaint. Further, Plaintiffs list the proposed additions in the notice of the motion and Declaration of Robert Glassman including the paragraph number with each addition.

In the Declaration of Robert Glassman, Plaintiffs’ counsel addresses each of these issues

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the substantive and procedural requirements for leave to amend. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

The Court expresses no views as to the merits of the new allegations.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file the amended complaint attached to their motion within 14 days.

Moving Party is to give notice.