Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 24STCV00218, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00218    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Knox v. Digital Cinema Collective
24STCV00218
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff Landon Knox (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Digital Cinema Collective, Inc., Tyler Martinez (“Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an alleged accident on May 31, 2022, at or near the intersection of West Jefferson Boulevard and La Cienega Place in Los Angeles.

On June 13, 2024, Defendants filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 20.

On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a substitution of attorney.

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.  Defendants filed an opposition on October 30, and Plaintiff filed a reply on November 19.

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

Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for general negligence, arguing that Plaintiff’s prior counsel inadvertently alleged only a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  The proposed new cause of action plainly arises out of the same set of facts described in the complaint.  Plaintiff argues that, as a result, allowing Plaintiff to add a cause of action for general negligence will not prejudice Defendants. Plaintiff also states that the failure to plead a cause of action for general negligence was discovered shortly after new counsel for Plaintiff substituted in to the case.  (Wong Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with all substantive and procedural requirements for the motion for leave to amend.  The Court further finds Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment in this case. Trial is set for July 3, 2025. Therefore, Defendants have sufficient time to conduct any discovery in relation to the cause of action for general negligence in preparing for trial.

Defendants also argue that the statute of limitations on a general negligence cause of action has run, but the Court will not, on a motion for leave to amend, adjudicate an affirmative defense to the proposed new cause of action or determine whether the relation back doctrine applies.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file the First Amended Complaint attached to the moving papers within 7 days of the hearing on this motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.