This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/26/2019 at 00:57:58 (UTC).

COMMUNICATIONS RELAY, LLC VS PATRICK J. PESANTEZ

Case Summary

On 01/16/2018 a Other case was filed by COMMUNICATIONS RELAY, LLC against PATRICK J PESANTEZ in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0540

  • Filing Date:

    01/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COMMUNICATIONS RELAY LLC

Defendant

PESANTEZ PATRICK J.

 

Court Documents

Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint

8/23/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint

Notice of Deposit - Jury - Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/1/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury - Notice of Deposit - Jury

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

4/24/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

4/25/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Order (name extension) - Order ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION

5/15/2019: Order (name extension) - Order ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON M...) of 05/16/2019

5/16/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON M...) of 05/16/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

7/17/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Answer

2/20/2018: Answer

Substitution of Attorney

7/10/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - (Hearing on Demurrer without Motion to Strike)

7/11/2018: Minute Order - (Hearing on Demurrer without Motion to Strike)

Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer without Motion to Strike) of 07/11/2018

7/11/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer without Motion to Strike) of 07/11/2018

Notice of Ruling

5/31/2018: Notice of Ruling

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

2/20/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Summons - on Amended Complaint (1st)

1/22/2018: Summons - on Amended Complaint (1st)

Complaint - (Amended)

1/22/2018: Complaint - (Amended)

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

1/16/2018: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/16/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/19/2021
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • Hearingat 01:30 PM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application to Amend First Complaint scheduled for 08/26/2019 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketMotion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint scheduled for 12/31/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...) of 07/17/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketAmended Complaint (1st); Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Patrick J. Pesantez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketSummons on Amended Complaint (1st); Issued and Filed by: Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint (1st): Status Date changed from 01/22/2018 to 01/16/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Patrick J. Pesantez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Communications Relay, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC00540    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 26

Communications Relay, LLC v. Pesantez, et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH CORRECTIONS MADE TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “GROSS NEGLIGENCE” AND PRAYER FOR DAMAGES AS DETAILED IN THIS ORDER, IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC (“Plaintiff”), brought suit on January 16, 2018, alleging Defendant Patrick Pesantez (“Defendant”) intentionally damaged and destroyed Plaintiff’s tow truck and crane truck when Plaintiff delivered them to Defendant to be repaired. On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a single cause of action for “Intentional Tort.” Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint on the grounds that discovery obtained in July 2019 at Defendant’s deposition demonstrates his culpability, lack of care, and extreme departure from the applicable standard of care to prevent harm.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint seeks to add seven additional causes of action: (1) Gross Negligence; (2) Negligent Performance of Work Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1714(a) and Lab. Code. § 2865; (3) Negligence Per Se due to Violation of Industrial Commission Safety Order 3650; (4) Negligent Failure to Use Reasonable Degree of Skill While Performing Work Pursuant to Lab. Code § 2858; (5) Negligent Failure to Use Skill He Possessed Performing Work Pursuant To Lab. Code § 2859; (6) Negligent Failure To Perform Work in Conformity to Usage of Place of Performance Pursuant to Lab. Code § 2857.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” “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 ‘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 (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (emphasis added).)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion complies with Rule 3.1324, with respect to the contents of the motion and inclusion of a supporting declaration. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting declaration set forth in detail what allegations are to be added and where, and that the amendments arise following Defendant’s deposition in July 2019. (Motion, Stepanian Decl., ¶¶9-12.)

The Court, therefore, finds that leave to amend is appropriate. However, the Court expresses one concern regarding the first cause of action in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, which is purportedly for “gross negligence.” There is no such cause of action for “gross negligence” recognized in California. (Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 546, 552, n. 3.)

[S]ince California's adoption of the comparative fault doctrine, “there typically [has been] no need to distinguish gross negligence from ordinary negligence” because fact finders can compare the respective fault of the parties. (Santa Barbara, at p. 781, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 161 P.3d 1095.) However, the court recognized that in certain limited contexts, such as in the case before it where a release of liability for negligence was signed for sports or recreational programs and services, the legal distinction between ordinary negligence and gross negligence continues to be necessary because, if supported by evidence showing the existence of a triable issue, the theory of gross negligence would be the only negligence-based theory that is potentially open to a plaintiff.

(Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 879.) There appear to be no relevant context in the first cause of action of the proposed Second Amended Complaint that requires the legal distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. All the cases on which Plaintiff relies for the concept of gross negligence involved a release of liability or immunity from liability issue. (See Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1076; (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 754; Decker v. City of Imperial Beach (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 349, 358; Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 25.) It further appears that the purpose of alleging “gross negligence” in the Second Amended Complaint is to seek punitive damages on the first cause of action. (Motion, Exh. 2, p. 12:10-11.) As nothing in the proposed Second Amended Complaint indicates that gross negligence is appropriately alleged, the first cause of action therein should simply be one for “negligence.” Correspondingly, to the extent Plaintiff requests leave to amend to add a prayer for punitive damages, the Court finds that such a request is not proper.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH CORRECTIONS MADE TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “GROSS NEGLIGENCE” AND PRAYER FOR DAMAGES AS DETAILED IN THIS ORDER, IS TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.

Moving party to give notice.