Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV46144, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV46144 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: February 7, 2024 TRIAL DATE: September 10, 2024
CASE: Edward Allen v. Lloyd Kraus et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV46144 consolidated with 22STCV18652 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Lloyd and Nancy Allen.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Lloyd Kraus and Electroease Inc. d/b/a Electropedic Beds
CASE HISTORY:
· 12/02/20: Complaint filed in lead case
· 06/14/21: First Amended Complaint filed in lead case.
· 09/13/21: Second Amended Complaint filed in lead case.
· 06/07/22: Complaint filed by Plaintiff Nancy Allen in this case
· 05/24/23: First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Nancy Allen in this case.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for breach of contract, fraud, product liability, and negligence arising from a defective stair lift.
Plaintiffs move for leave to file a consolidated Third Amended Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a stand-alone copy of the Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiffs move for leave to file a consolidated Third Amended Complaint.
Legal Standard
The Court may, “at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, . . . allow the amendment of any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 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.)
//
Contents of Motion
Plaintiffs included a copy of the proposed third amended complaint attached to the motion, as required by Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1). (Plaintiff’s Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s motion does not state which allegations are proposed to be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number, as required by subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3). However, the purpose of this motion is to obtain leave to file a single pleading that consolidates the several pleadings filed in this action. Thus, identification of specific alterations is not necessary, as the entire proposed Third Amended Complaint is replacing all the previous pleadings in their entirety. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324(a) by demonstrating with sufficient clarity what amendments are sought.
Supporting Declaration
The Declaration of Michael Alfera attached to the motion clearly states the effect of the proposed amendments as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1). These effects include, inter alia, adding new claims under the Song Beverly Act and the Elder Abuse Act, presenting the facts of the case in a chronological narrative, and providing further detail for existing allegations. (Declaration of Michael Alfera ISO Mot. ¶ 7.) The Alfera Declaration also states that the amendments are necessary and proper because they eliminate any issues of confusion posed by competing pleadings, present the factual allegations with greater clarity, and allow Plaintiffs to assert all potentially viable claims based on these facts. (Alfera Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs have thus demonstrated compliance with Rule 3.1324(b)(2). Plaintiffs state that there are no new facts giving rise to the amended allegations, thus satisfying subdivision (b)(3). (Alfera Decl. ¶ 9.) Finally, Attorney Alfera states that amendment was not sought earlier because Plaintiffs’ current counsel took over the case in September 2023, and needed time to get up to speed on the facts of this matter. (Alfera Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs have thus complied with Rule 3.1324(b)(4). The Court therefore finds that the Declaration demonstrates compliance with Rule 3.1324(b).)
Defendants’ Opposition
Defendants oppose this motion on the basis that the proposed consolidated Third Amended Complaint asserts several new causes of action. Defendants assert that the proposed causes of action under the Song Beverly Act, the Elder Abuse Act, and Business & Professions Code section 7031 are “another and distinct cause of action,” relying on early jurisprudence concerning when amendment is proper. (Dubbers v. Goux (1875) 51 Cal. 153, 155; Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 20 [“The right to amend should be denied if a change is made in the liability sought to be enforced against the defendant.”]) As Plaintiffs state in reply, however, a closer reading of Klopstock belies Defendants’ argument, to wit:
[T]his court has said: ‘It is obvious that the unqualified way in which the rule is sometimes stated—i. e. that a new or different cause of action cannot be introduced by amendment—cannot be accepted; for the most common kinds of amendments are those in which complaints are amended that do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and in these, and often in the case of new parties, a new cause of action is in fact for the first time introduced. All that can be required, therefore (to use the language of Mr. Pomeroy), is that ‘a wholly different cause of action’ shall not be introduced.
(Klopstock, supra, 17 Cal.2d at 20 [emphasis added].) Put differently, Klopstock holds that amendment is proper so long as the amendment does not attempt “to present an utterly different set of facts.” (Thomas v. Bruza (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 150, 155.) Plaintiffs are not asserting an “utterly different set of facts” in seeking leave to amend. The allegations in the proposed Third Amended Complaint are, in essence, unchanged: that Defendants improperly installed a chair lift which was defective. The Court is not persuaded that leave to amend should be denied on this basis.
Defendants also argue that they will be unfairly prejudiced if leave to amend is granted because, they claim, there will be insufficient time to fully evaluate the new claims before mediation scheduled for February 21, 2024. Defendants also assert that the new claims will require “additional extensive discovery.” (Opp. p. 10:19.) The Court is unmoved. The risks described by Defendants are an inherent consequence of any amendment to the pleadings, and do not amount to justification to depart from the strong presumption in favor of leave to amend.
As Plaintiffs have demonstrated substantial compliance with the requirements for a motion for leave to amend under the Rules of Court, and Defendants have offered no valid justification for denial, the Court finds that leave to file consolidated Third Amended Complaint is warranted.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a standalone copy of the Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.
Moving Parties to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024 ___________________________________
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.