Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV19337, Date: 2024-03-12 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 Number: 22STCV19337    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   March 12, 2024                                              

CASE NAME:           DB Insurance Company LTD v. City of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                22STCV19337

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND OF NONAPPEARANCE

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff DB Insurance Company LTD

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of March 6, 2024

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

2.      The Proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the Proposed Order is deemed filed this date.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff DB Insurance Company LTD (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant City of Los Angeles (Defendant) for subrogation. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff investigated a property damage claim due to LAPD’s removal of explosives/fireworks from a property neighboring Plaintiff’s insured’s property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is responsible for the loss and seeks recovery of sums Plaintiff paid to its insured.

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against Defendant which was entered that same date.

On September 30, 2022, the court held a Case Management Conference and found the proof of service invalid.

On October 17, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint.

On January 18, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation to Set Aside Default which the court GRANTED.

On January 25, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint.

On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which was rejected.

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Oppositions were due on or before February 28, 2024. As of March 6, 2024, Defendant has not filed an opposition with the court.

LEGAL STANDARD:

California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 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 (CRC), 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 seeks to amend the Complaint to change the damages amount from $98,574.29 to $121,735.52. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

Here, Plaintiff substantially complied with CRC, rule 3.1324. Plaintiff included a copy of the proposed FAC, identified the proposed change to the previous pleading and amended pleading. As to the attorney declaration, Plaintiff indicates that the only change is to the damages amount due to incurring additional damages. There are no new facts or allegations proposed.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.

CONCLUSION:

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

1.Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

2.The Proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the Proposed Order is deemed filed this date.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             March 12, 2024                       __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court