Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV28511, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28511    Hearing Date: April 2, 2025    Dept: 45

Mirna Valeria Molina v. Elysian City Lights, et al.

Plaintiff mirna valerio molina’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 2, 2025                                       Trial Date:       March 9, 2025

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        22STCV28511

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Mirna Valerio Molina

Responding Party:     Defendants Elysian City Lights and Aperto Property Management, Inc.

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Asobie Decl. ¶32.)

BACKGROUND

This an action regarding injuries sustained by Plaintiff Mirna Valerio Molina (“Plaintiff”) while riding an elevator owned and operated, or otherwise controlled by, Defendants Elysian City Lights (“Elysian”), Aperto Property Management, Inc. (“Aperto”), TK Elevator Corporation (“TKE” collectively, “Defendants”). The complaint alleges causes of action in (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) common carrier liability, (4) strict product liability, (5) negligent product liability, and (6) breach of express or implied warranties by Plaintiff.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.

discussion

Plaintiff Mirna Valerio Molina moves the court for an order granting Plaintiff leave to file the First Amended Complaint to add additional causes of action for violation of California Civil Code §54 and §54.1 as well as additional prayers for relief for treble damages arising from California Civil Code § 54.3 and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff also seeks to remove the fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action against Defendant TK Elevator Corporation.

The courts have a strong policy of allowing motions for leave to amend. “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….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527.)  A court can deny leave to amend after long, inexcusable delay, where there is cognizable prejudice, such as discovery needed, trial delay, critical evidence lost, or added preparation expense.  (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 686, 692; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)  Notably, “it is not required to accept an amended complaint that is not filed in good faith, is frivolous, or sham.” (American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 875, 878.)

A party requesting leave to amend must also comply with CRC Rule 3.1324, by including a copy of the proposed amended pleading and attaching a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel, as to (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) why the request was not made earlier. 

Plaintiff seeks to add additional causes of action for Civil Code sections 54 and 54.1. Plaintiff contends through the discovery process, it was revealed Defendant Elysian City Lights violated Plaintiff’s right under Civil Code section 54 and 54.1 by failing to abide by elevator safety standards that are set forth in, inter alia, the American with Disabilities Act (including, failing to inspect and maintain their elevator as required by law). As a result of this failure, Plaintiff contends she tripped and unable to maintain her balance, suffered a hard fall. Plaintiff contends Defendant Elysian City Lights will not be prejudiced by the additional cause of action since it does not require further discovery and even so, trial is a year away.

In opposition, Defendant Elysian City Lights argues the motion must be denied since Plaintiff does not allege she was denied full and equal access to Defendants’ elevator (which would constitute a violation of Civil Code sections 54 and 54.1), rather Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants’ elevator opened prematurely and not at the same level as she was getting off. Moreover, there are no allegations Defendants knew the subject elevator was opening prematurely and unleveled or that this alleged premature opening not at the same level denied her equal opportunity to enjoy the elevator. Furthermore, the new causes of action against the Defendants are not supported by the Exhibits attached to her motion as they show the subject elevator passed an inspection by the Department of Building and Safety just 8 days prior to her alleged incident. Whether the Defendants submitted certification of ASME testing is not a violation of California Civil Code §54 and §54.1.

Given the liberal policy in granting motions for leave to amend, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint including adding the causes of action for Civil Code section 54 and 54.1 as well as removing the fourth, fifth and six causes of action. On the face of the amended complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim under Civil Code sections 54. And 54.1 and has complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Whether or not Plaintiff’s claim actually has any merit under Civil Code section 54 and 54.1 is better suited for merit-based motions including demurrer, summary judgment or the like.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.