Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 19STCV27042 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

CASE NAME: Amanda Spiva v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Amanda Spiva (“Plaintiff”) sues Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant” or “MTA”) for physical and sexual assaults made against her on Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had actual and constructive knowledge that Plaintiff was under attack but failed to act reasonably. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant willfully chose to deprive Plaintiff of safe and secure transportation services because of her physical appearance and her status as an actual or perceived poor and homeless woman.

On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, and on December 30, 2020, the operative First Amended Complaint, against Defendant for the following causes of action:

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, Fictitious/Incorrect Name, naming Doe 1 as North American Security and Investigations, Inc.

On January 27, 2023, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority filed the current Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed on February 15, 2023. Defendant’s Reply was filed on February 22, 2023.

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).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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, subdivision (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.

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority moves for leave to amend its answer to add eight new affirmative defenses.[1]

Defendant argues that these affirmative defenses are necessary to defend itself at trial. Additionally, these defenses relate to issues that have already been discussed between the parties. Defendant also argues that there was no delay in seeking amendments, and requested Plaintiff stipulate to allow these amendments in August and October 2022. Lastly, there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff as the facts underlying the affirmative defenses have already been discussed and discovered through discovery.

Plaintiff first argues that the 19^th through 24^th defenses cannot be asserted because they are waived. Defendant did not raise any defects as to Plaintiff’s claim and should have been raised in the demurrer filed on January 6, 2021. Additionally, Defendant did not submit a rejection letter in its declaration and supporting paper to its motion. Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was dilatory in raising these affirmative defenses, and Plaintiff will be prejudiced. This motion was not filed until after Plaintiff’s deposition and did not raise any intent to add affirmative defenses in any meet and confers, IDCs or correspondence between the parties. Additionally, Plaintiff will be prejudiced because if Plaintiff had known about these defenses, like failure to mitigate, Plaintiff “could have spent more time seeking targeted discovery on this issue and structure further mitigation efforts based on Defendant’s discovery responses and contentions in this case.” (Opp. 3: 19-23.)

“It is the general rule that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed.” (Simons v. Kern County (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 362, 367). Further, “and it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530). “[N]evertheless, whether such an amendment shall be allowed rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. (Citations.) And courts are much more critical of proposed amendments to answers when offered after long unexplained delay or on the eve of trial (citations), or where there is a lack of diligence, or there is prejudice to the other party (citations).” (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)

Here, the Court finds Defendant has failed to establish good cause as to why it should be permitted to amend its answer to add eight new affirmative defenses. Six of the eight affirmative defenses all concern various sections of the Government Code. These sections concern liability of a public entity, liability of a public employee, timing for filing claims, etc. However, this complaint was filed in August 2019, the FAC filed in December 2020, Defendant demurring in January 2021, and the final Answer filed in October 2021. Moreover, trial was initially set for January 28, 2021, reset for July 26, 2022, January 31, 2023, and most recently, September 28, 2023. Now, three and half years after the complaint and after the passage of three trial dates, Defendant now seeks to add defenses concerning liability as a public entity pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act (“Act”) under various Government Code sections. As early as September 18, 2020, Defense counsel raised these purported deficiencies in the initial complaint in a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Demurrer, Morgenstern Dec. ¶3.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed their FAC on December 30, 2020. Defendant has failed to explain why these sections of the Government Code were not initially raised in their meet and confer letter, the Demurrer to the FAC or in their Answer to the FAC. The Court will note that proposed affirmative defenses 23 and 24 provide sinister explanations for the delay. Those affirmative defense cite to Government Code section 911.2 and 946.6 which provide for relief from failing to meet the strict statutory deadlines in presenting claims under the Act. Those time standards for discretionary relief have long since passed. However, the Court need not make a finding regarding the reason for Defendant’s delay. The fact remains that the effect of the delay, whether negligent or intentional, is the same. This failure of Defendant to timely file these Affirmative Defenses deprives Plaintiff from utilizing remedial safeguard for relief. Stated otherwise, the delay has prejudiced Plaintiff. Although Defendant first raised the issue of amending the pleading in an August 17, 2022, communication (Motion, Exhibit B), even by that date, Plaintiff had been prejudiced by the delay. In any event, Defendant still waited an additional five months before filing this motion. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff will suffer additional prejudice as significant discovery has already taken place and deadlines have lapsed. For example, the Court notes that Defendant waited until two weeks after completing the deposition of Plaintiff before filing this motion. From this record, the Court finds that Defendants unexplained delay in seeking an amendment, coupled with prejudice to Plaintiff, warrants denial of the proposed Amendments.

[1] The affirmative defenses are: failure to mitigate, damages caused by another party’s failure to maintain the premises; barred by Government Code § 945.4; failure to initiate lawsuit within six-month under Government Code § 945.6; barred by Government Code §§ 815, 815.2, 815.4, 820, 820.2, 821.4, 830, 830.2, 830.5, 830.6, 835, 835.2, 835.4, 840. 840.2, 840.4, 840.6, and 905.6; barred by Government Code § 911.2; barred by Government Code § 911.4; and barred under Government Code § 946.6.