Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV25512, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25512 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Leave to File An Amended Answer from Defendant
Isabel Fuentez.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On September 18, 2023, Erik Brown and
Christie Mills-Brown (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against
Isabel Fuentez (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general
negligence causes of action arising out of an automobile accident occurring on
the Southbound I-101 in Los Angeles, California on December 20, 2022.
On November 6, 2023, Defendant filed
an answer.
On June 20, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for leave
to file an amended answer. No opposition has been filed.
Legal Authority
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
Defendant
requests leave to amend her answer to add two affirmative defenses, first, the
defense that the claims are barred by a settlement and second, the defense of
unclean hands.
Defense
counsel includes in the declaration addressing the need for the amendment due
to the parties entering a settlement agreement and Plaintiffs’ subsequent
backing out of its offered agreement. (Velastegui Decl., ¶¶ 5-18.) Plaintiffs
sent a settlement offer for policy limits on May 1; Defenant accepted on May 8.
(Id., ¶¶ 5, 7.) Defendant attaches a copy of the proposed Amended
Answer. (Exh. 11.)
Reviewing
the motion and its exhibits, the Court finds that Defendant has established
good cause for leave to amend their answer as there was a likely settlement
agreement offered and accepted by the parties, which has now fallen through.
The
Court finds good cause has been established for Defendant amends the answer to
add the Eleventh and Twelfth Affirmative Defenses.
As such,
the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.
The
Court GRANTS Defendant leave to file the First Amended Answer within 10 days of
notice of this order.