Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV20735, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20735    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Seung Jung, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Hyungjoo Kim filed the instant action against Defendant 638 Landfair, LLC for general negligence. Plaintiff alleges he fell from a third floor balcony of an apartment due to Defendant’s negligence.

          On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which omitted the claim for punitive damages.

          On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. Defendant opposes.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “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.” 

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial 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 where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located.  CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

III.     DISCUSSION

          The Court finds the procedural requirements of CRC 3.1324 have been met. Plaintiff seeks to amend his pleading to add additional facts such as clarifying that he fell from the fourth floor and establishing landlord tenant liability. Plaintiff provides a declaration from counsel stating that the additional facts were ascertained during the past several months. While there was surveillance footage of the fall, there were no eyewitnesses. Thus, Plaintiff had to retain investigators and specialized experts, statements were taken, reconstructive models were made, and the deposition of Defendant’s president was taken as well as further written discovery. (See Bruchey Declaration.)

          Defendant opposes arguing that it will be prejudiced because Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in making the additional allegations in the proposed SAC as they provide new theories of liability which should have been pled a year ago. However, Defendant does not provide the Court with anything showing that it was not necessary for Plaintiff to conduct the discovery detailed above to discover the facts asserted in the proposed SAC. Further, Defendant makes arguments directed towards the merits of the SAC which the Court, in its discretion, declines to consider on this motion.

          The Court notes that trial is currently scheduled for February 27, 2023, allowing ample time for the parties to perform further discovery as to the new allegations. While Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is set for September 28, 2022, the Court may allow Defendant to amend its motion and/or Defendant may file a new motion which incorporates the new allegations and theories of liability. In light of the liberal policy allowing amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.