Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV02244, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02244    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   February 24, 2023                                          

CASE NAME:           Ester Benyamin v. RRT Enterprises, L.P., et al.

CASE NO.:                22STCV02244

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ester Benyamin

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of February 21, 2023.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting leave to file a First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, subject to the changes noted below.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Ester Benyamin (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants RRT Enterprises, L.P. dba Country Villa Wilshire Convalescent Center, Country Villa Service Corp dba Country Villa Health Services (“Defendants.”) the complaint alleged four causes of action: (1) Elder Abuse and Neglect, (2) Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1430(b), (3) Negligence, and (4) Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention. Plaintiff, an 86-year-old woman, was admitted into Defendant’s custody in June 2020. While there, Plaintiff suffered an arm fracture that required surgery. Despite knowing of Plaintiff’s risk for fall, Defendants failed to implement any fall prevention interventions, such as a low bed, call lights, and floor mats. While Plaintiff stayed at the facility, care was substandard.

On June 20, 2022, Defendant RRT Enterprises, LP dba Country Villa Wilshire Convalescent Center and Rockport Adminsitrative Services, LLC filed an Answer.

On July 22, 2022, Defendant Boardwalk Financial West Services, LLC.

The current Motion for Leave to Amend to File First Amended Complaint on December 30, 2022. On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. As of February 21, 2023, no Opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD:

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. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to appoint a successor in interest as Plaintiff has died since the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff’s death certificate is attached as Exhibit 2. Thus, adding Sharon Ourian as the successor in interest is appropriate. Second, Plaintiff seeks to substitute the names of Does 1, 26, 27, and 28 with their true identities. These identities became known through the discovery process. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to remove the fourth cause of action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention. Lastly, Plaintiff seeks to add a fourth cause of action for Wrongful Death.

Plaintiff argues that none of the Defendants would be prejudiced by adding these proposed amendments. There is no trial date and ample time for discovery.

“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). “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Here, the Court finds that there is good cause to allow for an amendment to the original complaint. However, while Plaintiff proposes dismissing the current 4^th Cause of Action of Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention for a new 4^th Cause of Action for Wrongful Death, the most appropriate procedural mechanism would be to add a 5^th Cause of Action for Wrongful Death and Dismiss the current 4^th Cause of Action of Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention.  Subject to filing a new, clean FAC reflecting this change, Motion for leave to Amend is Granted.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED, subject to the changes noted above.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             February 24, 2023                   __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court