Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV12398, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12398    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Salvador Mota and Priscilla Marie Mota aka Priscilla Marie Rubio (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on April 12, 2022 against Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) assault, (4) battery, (5) false imprisonment, (6) violation of federal civil rights, (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (8) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.

Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a first amended complaint to add a ninth cause of action.[1] No opposition to the motion was filed.   

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Ibid.) Finally, 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b), emphasis added.)

The Court does not find that Plaintiffs have complied with all of the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

Plaintiffs attach as Exhibit 1 to the motion the proposed first amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that “[t]he basis for amending to add a Ninth cause of action is to allege a state violation of civil rights under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §52.1.” (DiDonato Decl., ¶ 3.) However, Plaintiffs do not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from the original Complaint, if any, and what allegations are proposed to be added, and where, “by page, paragraph, and line number.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a)(2)-(3).)

In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s supporting declaration does not specify “[w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper,” “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered,” or “[t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (b)(2)-(4).)

Although Plaintiffs have not complied with the Rules of Court, in light of the lack of any opposition to the proposed amended complaint, the Court finds that it is not in the interest of judicial economy to require Plaintiffs to refile their motion. For that reason, the Court grants the motion.  Plaintiffs must file and serve their first amended complaint within five court days of the date of this Order.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  August 7, 2023                               ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court