Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2021-01184284 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01184284, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s (Joshua Derek Brown) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to Seek Punitive Damages Against Defendants Mather Brothers Moving Company and Wheaton World Wide (Motion), filed on 6-17-22 under ROA No. 83, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), states in part, “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. Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states, “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

“It is well established that ‘California courts “have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” [Citation.] Indeed, “it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his [or her] pleading so that he [or she] may properly present his [or her] case.’ ” [Citation.]’ (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158, 263 Cal.Rptr. 473.) Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. [Citation.]” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. [Citation.] ‘However, “ ‘even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’ [Citation.’ A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown.’ [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048, states, “As Justice Kaufman has noted, even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.’ [Citation.]”

Plaintiff seek to amend the Complaint to add punitive damages allegations. (Motion; 4:13-14.) The Motion substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (Siegler Decl.)

Defendants’ (Wheaton World Wide Moving and Mathers Brothers Moving Company, LLC) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Challenging Plaintiff’s Proposed Amendment Seeking Punitive Damages (Opposition), filed on 9-6-22 under ROA No. 125, states, “Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to meet the strict pleading requirements necessary to allege a prayer for punitive damages against an employer of an allegedly negligent driver. Defendants will contest the sufficiency of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, if necessary, in its responsive pleading should the Court permit the filing of the proposed amended complaint. [¶] Defendants also claim, however, that the punitive damage claim is futile as California law clearly prohibits an award of punitive damages based on a claim for wrongful death. . . . [¶] No claim for a survival action is articulated in either the original or proposed amended complaint. The proposed amended complaint is brought by Plaintiff in his individual capacity, not in a representative capacity (proposed FAC paragraph 1). No affidavit accompanies the proposed amended complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 to establish a survival action.” (Opposition; 2:5-18.)

The trial is set on 1-6-23. Although the Opposition indicates that the proposed First Amended Complaint (Siegler Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit A) may be legally deficient, the Opposition does not direct the court to any prejudice to Defendants in terms of preparing for trial. Defendants can contest the sufficiency of the proposed First Amended Complaint (Siegler Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit A) by way of demurrer or other proceedings.

Therefore, based on the liberal policy regarding amendments, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Joshua Derek Brown) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to Seek Punitive Damages Against Defendants Mather Brothers Moving Company and Wheaton World Wide) filed on 6-17-22 under ROA No. 83. The court ORDERS Plaintiff to electronically file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint (Siegler Decl., ¶ 6 and Exhibit A) no later than 9-27-22.

Plaintiff is to give notice.