Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00749, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00749    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: O

Monday, February 6, 2023

RE:                                                      HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUBROGEE FOR ITS INSURED, BLM GROUP USA CORPORATI vs AMERICAN RIGGERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. (21PSCV00749)

________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

      Responding Party: Unopposed as of 1/30 (due 9 court days before hearing, 1/24)

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT is GRANTED.

Background

This is a negligence cause of action. Plaintiff HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, individually and as subrogee for its insured, BLM Group USA Corporation, alleges the following against AMERICAN RIGGERS, INC (“Defendant AR”): Plaintiff issued an insurance policy to BLM providing coverage against loss or damage to cargo and other casualties (the “Policy”), which also provided coverage to BLM for damages to a Tube Bending Machine (the “Machine”). In the process of offloading the Machine from a flatbed truck, the Machine fell and was damaged. Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount of no less than $541,810.71.

On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit for negligence.

On November 1, 2021, Defendant filed its answer.

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) replacing Doe 1 as Gale Banks Engineering.

On September 6, 2022, Gale Banks Engineering (“Defendant GB”) filed its Answer.

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

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; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”  CCP § 473(a)(1).  “When it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the amendment renders it necessary, the court may postpone the trial, and may, when the postponement will by the amendment be rendered necessary, require, as a condition to the amendment, the payment to the adverse party of any costs as may be just.”  CCP § 473(a)(2).

A party requesting leave to amend must also comply with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1324, by including a copy of the proposed amended pleading and attaching a declaration by counsel, as to (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) why the request was not made earlier.  CRC Rule 3.1324(b).  The motion itself must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted or additional allegations are located. CRC Rule 3.1324(a).

California law holds that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties.  Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89; CCP § 576. 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint to add breach of contract against Defendant GB after GB denied Hartford’s tender for indemnity. Specifically, Plaintiff explains in various discovery responses and deposition testimony, Defendant AR stated that GB failed to provide AR with the proper lifting instructions. On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff made a first-party tender for indemnity pursuant to the lease agreement between Defendant GB and BLM, but GB failed to accept Hartford’s tender.

Therefore, as the motion is timely made, the amendment is based on the same general set of facts such that it would not prejudice Defendants,[1] and Plaintiff has complied with the California Rules of Court, the court finds amending the pleading would be in furtherance of the policy that requires courts to resolve disputes on the merits.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion.