Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV08736, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV08736 Hearing Date: April 14, 2025 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: April
14, 2025
CASE NAME: Nahid
Lahiji v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV08736
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Nahid Lahiji
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of April 9, 2025
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order granting leave for Plaintiff to file the proposed Second Amended
Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff Nahid Lahiji (Plaintiff) filed a
Complaint against Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Christopher
Pratt, Kent Stiles, Trevor Evans, and Greg Ward (Defendants) with causes of
action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Financial Abuse of
an Elder Person; and (5) Negligent Misrepresentation.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff had property insurance
with Defendants for her family home. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged
in nefarious claim handling tactics designed to delay her claims process, deny
benefits owed to Plaintiff, and took advantage of her age and inexperience.
On September 20, 2024, Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company filed an Answer.
On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint which the court ordered stricken on November 20, 2024.
On November 19, 2024, Defendants Liberty Insurance
Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed a Notice of Removal to
Federal Court.
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff field a motion for leave to
file First Amended Complaint.
On February 19, 2025, the clerk filed a Notice of Remand
from Federal Court.
On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of
Motion and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (the instant motion).
Any oppositions were due on or before April 1, 2025. As of
April 9, 2025, the court has not received any oppositions.
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 Rules of Court (CRC), 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 contends that leave to amend to add additional
defendants and clarifying factual allegations is proper because counsel did not
learn these parties’ identities until October 2024 and no party will be
prejudiced by the amendment. As of April 9, 2025, the court has not received
any oppositions.
Here, leave to amend is warranted. First, Plaintiff complied
with the requirements of CRC, rule 3.1324(b). Second, no party filed an
opposition indicating prejudice and the court does not otherwise see prejudice.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court