Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV42783, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42783    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 9, 2020, plaintiff Tanisha Nolen (“Plaintiff”), individually and as the successor-in- interest of decedent Daniel Odoemelam (“Decedent”), filed this action against defendants Best Western International, Inc. (“Best Western”) and Brian Doe. The action arises from the death of Decedent at the swimming pool located at 6141 Franklin Avenue in Hollywood, California (the “Property”).  On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  On January 19, 2021, Plaintiff amended the FAC to add Hollywood Franklin Hotel and Restaurant Associations, LLC (“Defendant”) as a Doe defendant.

On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).  Defendant filed an answer on April 6, 2021.  On July 20, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for leave to file an amended answer in order to assert an affirmative defense under Civil Code section 846.  The hearing was continued from August 16, 2022, to the present date because Plaintiff belatedly filed an opposition brief on August 15, 2022.  After the hearing was continued, Defendant filed a reply brief on August 19, 2022. 

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.”  (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)  “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 . . . this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’  [Citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.  [Citation.]”  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1024, 487.)

A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).)  The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)

Defendant attaches a copy of its proposed answer to its motion and explains that counsel became aware of Civil Code section 846 as an affirmative defense on or about May 26, 2022, a little over a year after Defendant served its original answer.  (Motion, Morris Decl., ¶ 3.)  In a late-filed opposition, Plaintiff argues that prejudice will result from this amended answer because there will be increased costs in conducting discovery.  However, Plaintiff does not specify what additional discovery will be needed, other than vaguely stating that witnesses will need to be questioned.  In the interest of resolving the case on its merits, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 

Defendant is ordered to file its proposed First Amended Answer within 5 days of the date of this Order.

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.