Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 24STCV08620, Date: 2025-05-13 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.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Ralph Loynachan, Emily Loynachan, and Jeri Schuessler

1. An Order granting leave to amend the Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against Defendants Jacqueline Goldberg and Sharon Stricker based on newly uncovered evidence.

2. Plaintiffs to file their First Amended Complaint within 7 days’ notice of this ruling.

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiffs Ralph Loynachan, Emily Loynachan, and Jeri Schuessler (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendants Brian Goldberg, Jacqueline Goldberg, and Sharon Strickler (Defendants) with causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle (Personal Injury); and (2) Loss of Consortium.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs Ralph and Emily Loynachan suffered severe personal injuries resulting from a car accident with Defendant Brian Goldberg on March 1, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Brian Goldberg was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, that he knew he was intoxicated, knew he was driving 50-60 mph in a 35 mph zone, and knew that serious injury would probably result to persons in the area.

On February 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to amend the Complaint to add punitive damages. On April 30, 2025, Defendants Jacqueline Goldberg and Sharon Stricker filed an opposition. On May 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

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.¿¿¿

Plaintiffs contend that leave to amend the Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against Defendants Jacqueline Goldberg and Sharon Stricker is warranted because newly discovered text messages show they knew Defendant Brian Goldberg had a serious drug problem in the days leading up to the accident and nevertheless let him use their car without limit.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ motion failed to articulate why it was not made earlier, is not based on new information, will unduly prejudice Defendants by substantially expanding the case’s scope, likely will delay trial, and is otherwise futile because the alleged conduct does not provide for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs reply that they substantially complied with the declaration requirements, that Defendants apply the wrong standard for punitive damages, and they are improperly asking for the court to resolve credibility issues reserved for the jury.

Here, leave to amend is warranted. First, Plaintiffs substantially complied with CRC, rule 3.1324(a). Plaintiffs attached the proposed First Amended Complaint to the motion. (Carlin Decl. ¶ 16, Exhibit 15.) While they did not provide a highlighted or redlined copy, Plaintiffs did identify the only changes as adding a prayer for punitive damages as to Defendants Jacqueline Goldberg and Sharon Stricker plus supplementing the basis for such damages. (Ibid.) Second, Plaintiffs complied with CRC, rule 3.1324(b).[1] Plaintiffs indicate the effect of the amendment is to allow prayer for punitive damages against Defendants Jacqueline Goldberg and Sharon Stricker for their alleged conduct in providing their car to their son, Defendant Brian Goldberg, despite knowing he was using drugs.[2] (Carlin Decl. ¶ 16; Carlin Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, 13.) Further, Plaintiffs did not bring this motion sooner because Defendants did not produce the pertinent text messages until two weeks before the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production.[3] (Carlin Supp. Decl. ¶ 6.)

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the Complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages and supporting allegations thereto.

2. Plaintiffs to file their First Amended Complaint within 7 days’ notice of this ruling.

[1] The court is unaware of authority prohibiting review of the Mr. Carlin’s supplemental declaration to correct any omissions from the first declaration. Indeed, it saves judicial resources because the court can consider this motion now rather than denying without prejudice for Plaintiffs to correct deficiencies in a few weeks.

[2] Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs knew about Defendant Brian Goldberg’s drug history from Defendants Jacqueline Goldberg’s and Sharon Stickler’s discovery responses and deposition testimony was presented in a way that violates Counsel’s duty of candor to the court. The court rejects this argument and cautions Counsel. Plaintiffs clearly do not seek to amend based on generalized knowledge of Defendant Brian Goldberg’s drug use but based on Defendant Jacqueline Goldberg and Sharon Stickler’s knowledge that they knew he was using the day of the accident and nonetheless loaned him their car. While the court appreciates zealous advocacy, there is a line that Counsel must not cross.

[3] The court rejects Defendants’ arguments of undue delay and prejudice and is well aware of Defendants’ dilatory tactics in producing these text messages. The court otherwise rejects Defendants’ remaining arguments concerning futility as improperly seeking resolution of credibility questions.