Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV41575, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41575    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2022, plaintiffs Jesus Salmeron Terriquez, Luz Maria Celis De Salmeron, and Pedro Alejandro Salmeron Terriquez, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Jesus Salmeron Terriquez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Jennifer Lyn Nelson (“Defendant Nelson”) and Mark Edward Hassel (“Defendant Hassel”), asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, and (3) loss of consortium.

The FAC alleges that this action arises from an automobile collision that occurred on or about November 10, 2019, on southbound 1-5 (Golden State Freeway), South of 4th Street, Los Angeles, California (the “Incident”). (FAC, ¶ 1.) At the time of the Incident, plaintiff Jesus Salmeron Terriquez (“Plaintiff Terriquez”) was driving in one lane on the freeway and plaintiff Luz Maria Celis De Salmeron was a passenger, when Defendant Nelson rear-ended and pushed them into another lane. (FAC, ¶ 8.) Defendant Hassel, who was travelling in that other lane, negligently struck the left side of Plaintiff’s vehicle. (FAC, ¶ 8.)

On April 26, 2022, Defendant Hassel filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity and contribution against Defendant Nelson.

On September 13, 2022, Defendant Hassel filed the instant motion for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).

On January 5, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of Plaintiffs’ non-opposition to the motion.

As of January 10, 2022, no opposition to the motion has been filed.

Non-jury trial is set for May 10, 2023.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’ That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a) requires a motion to amend to: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed… amended pleading… [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located….”

Rule 3.1324(b) provides: “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.”

“If the cross-complaint adds new parties, the cross-complaint must be served on all parties and proofs of service on the new parties must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the cross-complaint.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(c).) However, the Court, “on its own motion … may extend or otherwise modify [those] times provided ….” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(e).)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Defendant Hassel moves the Court for leave to file an FACC adding Plaintiff Terriquez as a cross-defendant. (Motion, p. 2:13-15.) Defendant argues that he has reasonable belief that Plaintiff Terriquez failed to control his vehicle following the initial impact, which resulted in the impact with Defendant Hassel’s vehicle. (Motion, p. 2:14-17.) Plaintiff Terriquez’s failure to control his vehicle resulted in and/or contributed to Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. (Motion, p. 2:17-19.)

          Defense counsel attests to the following facts. Following the filing of the Defendant Hassel’s answer, he obtained photographs of vehicles at the scene of the Incident. (Declaration of Daniel G. Balich (“Balich Decl.”), ¶ 4.) The photos show that Plaintiff Terriquez’s vehicle struck the side of Defendant Hassel’s vehicle and subsequently pushed it into the concrete median on Southbound I-5 freeway. (Balich Decl., ¶ 4; Exhibit A – a copy of the photos.) Defense counsel asked Plaintiffs’ counsel if the parties would stipulate to Defendant Hassel filing the FACC adding Plaintiff Terriquez as a cross-defendant, but Plaintiffs’ counsel refused. (Balich Decl., ¶ 5.) A copy of the proposed FACC is attached to defense counsel’s declaration. (Balich Decl., ¶ 6; Exhibit B.)

          The Court finds it proper to grant the motion. Defendant Hassel filed his Answer on April 26, 2022, and the Cross-Complaint against Defendant Nelson that same day. This means, per defense counsel’s declaration, Defendant Hassel did not discover the facts giving rise to the proposed FACC against Plaintiff Terriquez until sometime last year. The Court finds that Defendant Hassel has not unduly delayed in bringing the instant motion. Plaintiff Terriquez has not filed an opposition explaining what prejudice if any he would suffer should the Court grant the motion.

          For the reasons set forth above, the motion is granted.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Defendant Mark Edward Hassel is ordered to serve his First Amended Cross-Complaint and file proof of service within 15 days of this ruling. The cross-defendants are ordered to serve and file their responsive pleadings within 30 days of service of the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

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’s 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.