Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV09498, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV09498    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 14, 2023               TRIAL DATE: May 7, 2024

CASE:                         Samantha Ammari v. Armando Rodriguez, et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV09498           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Samantha Ammari

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant, the State of California, by and through the California Department of Motor Vehicles

CASE HISTORY:

·         03/19/19: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This case arises out of an altercation at a DMV location between Plaintiff and her boyfriend and a DMV employee who allegedly blocked their access to their vehicle, struck Plaintiff multiple times, and had her boyfriend’s vehicle towed. Plaintiff alleges assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and civil rights violations.

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to file a clean standalone copy of the First Amended Complaint with a properly numbered caption identifying it as such within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint.

Legal Standard

The Court may, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1); see also § 576.) A motion to amend a pleading before trial must meet the following requirements:

(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(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.

(b) Supporting declaration

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.

(CRC 3.1324.) 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.) 

Contents of Motion

            Plaintiff included a clean copy of the proposed amended pleading as Exhibit A attached to the motion. However, as Defendant the State of California observes in opposition, the caption of the proposed pleading does not state that it is the First Amended Complaint. (Plaintiff’s Exh. A.) Plaintiff, in reply, concedes this omission and states that it was made in error. As the proposed pleading is extensively referenced in the moving papers as a First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324(a)(1). The motion also includes a redlined copy of the proposed pleading, which identifies each addition and deletion as it occurs relative to the original Complaint, thereby showing the proposed changes by page, paragraph, and line number, as required by Rule 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3), Defendant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding. Plaintiff has therefore substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

            The Declaration of Elvin Tabah filed in support of the motion states the effect of the proposed amendments as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1): to add new causes of action for excessive force and malicious prosecution and amend a cause of action for false arrest to include a claim for violation of 42 U.S. Code section 1983. (Declaration of Elvin I Tabah ISO Mot. ¶ 4.) The declaration states only that the proposed amendments are necessary and proper for Plaintiff to receive full relief for her claims. (Id.) Although this explanation is of limited value, the propriety of amending a pleading to assert all applicable causes of action is readily apparent to the Court, such that the declaration is in substantial compliance with subdivision (b)(2).

            The declaration does not clearly state when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, as required by subdivision (b)(3). However, the proposed amendments concern additional claims arising from the same incident in August 2018 that gave rise to the initial Complaint (see, e.g., Exh. A. ¶¶ 21-25) and dismissal of criminal charges against Plaintiff in March 2022 (Id. ¶¶ 48-49.) Thus, the proposed pleading demonstrates on its face that Plaintiff became aware of the underlying facts no earlier than the dates listed in the proposed pleading. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with subdivision (b)(3).

            Plaintiff’s only explanation for why the request for amendment was not made sooner is that Plaintiff’s current counsel filed the motion within a month of substituting into the action. (Tabah Decl. ¶ 4.) As Defendant states in opposition, the Declaration provides no explanation for why amendment was not sought if the most recent events occurred in 2022. Defendant therefore argues that leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in filing this motion. (See, e.g., Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 136.) A review of the record shows, however, that Plaintiff has twice substituted in new counsel for her previous legal representation, first on July 26, 2022, and again on August 2, 2023. (July 26, 2022 Substitution of Attorney; August 2, 2023 Substitution of Attorney.) As the identification of the applicable legal claims is the responsibility—and, indeed, the purpose—of a party’s legal counsel, the Court finds Attorney Tabah’s explanation that the motion was filed within a month of substituting into this case as sufficient to establish compliance with subdivision (b)(4) and demonstrates adequate justification for the delay. Thus, Plaintiff has substantially complied with Rule 3.1324(b).

Defendant’s Opposition

            The State of California raises numerous objections to the merits of the proposed First Amended Complaint.

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].)

            Defendant argues that the new causes of action claiming violation of federal law are barred by the two-year statute of limitations because they arise out of the same incident in August 2018 that gave rise to the original Complaint. This is a surprising argument for the State of California to advance when it should be perfectly aware that the relation-back doctrine—which permits amendment precisely when the new claims arise out of the same facts as the original, timely filed claims—is well-established under both California and federal law. (Austin v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 601-603; Fed R. Civ. Proc. Rule 15(c).)

Defendants also argue that the proposed causes of action for violation of 42 U.S. Code section 1983 are defective because they are “unclear.” This is not a valid objection in the context of a motion for leave to amend, and, even if the Court were to construe the objection as one of uncertainty, Defendants’ conclusory assertion that the causes of action improperly blend state and federal claims would not be sufficient to carry that burden.  (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459 ["The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts."].)

Defendants next claim that the proposed cause of action for malicious prosecution fails because Plaintiff did not obtain a “favorable termination” of the underlying criminal matter, as alleged in the proposed First Amended Complaint. (Plaintiff’s Exh. A. ¶ 54.) Defendants’ argument relies entirely on extrinsic evidence that would not be considered as sufficient to sustain a demurrer and is therefore likewise insufficient here. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)

Finally, Defendant asserts, without evidence, that addition of these new causes of action will significantly prejudice Defendant by requiring them to craft a new defense strategy. Defendant offers no real explanation nor evidence demonstrating how the State of California will be unfairly prejudiced by these new claims on this basis, however.

//

Conclusion

            As Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324, and Defendant’s objections to the proposed amended complaint lack merit, the Court finds good cause to permit Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to file a clean stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint with a properly numbered caption identifying it as such within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  September 14, 2023                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.