LORENA VANEGAS VS WILLIAM BAUMGART, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC02438    Hearing Date: October 05, 2020    Dept: 26

Vanegas v. Baumgart, et al

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT; MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP §§ 473(a); 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Lorena Vanegas’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

DEFENDANT WILLIAM BAUMGART’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS MOOT.

Plaintiff Lorena Vanegas (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants William Baumgart (“Defendant Baumgart”) RJS Construction Supplies and RJS Demolition and Disposal (“Defendants”) on March 8, 2019. Defendant Baumgart filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication on May 4, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 8, 2020 and Defendant Baumgart replied on September 28, 2020.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint on June 10, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges her vehicle was damaged in a motor vehicle accident on October 6, 2018 due to Defendants’ negligent operation, ownership or entrustment of a motor vehicle. (Compl., ¶MV-2.) Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to amend the Complaint to allege a cause of action for general negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration stating that the factual allegations in the Complaint are not correct and must be amended to allege general negligence based on Defendants’ placement of large metal trash bin placed on a poorly-lit street. (Motion, Perez Decl., p. 3:7-12.) Plaintiff contends that she side-swiped the bin while driving sustaining property damage and personal injuries. (Ibid.)

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).)

Even if the Court were to find that Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to allege the correct facts and cause of action to be inexcusable, there is no apparent prejudice to Defendants from allowing amendment of the Complaint at this time. The Motion for Leave to Amend is unopposed and no trial date is pending. Nor does Defendant Baumgart’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment require denial of leave to amend. (Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280 (holding that if the facts indicate that a plaintiff has a good cause of action which is imperfectly pleaded, the trial court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend instead of granting the motion for summary judgment.)

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).) As discussed above, the Motion is accompanied by a declaration that explains the discovery of actual facts of this case and attaches a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint.

Therefore, Plaintiff Lorena Vanegas’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

In light of the ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, DEFENDANT WILLIAM BAUMGART’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS MOOT.

Plaintiff to give notice. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Lorena Vanegas (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants William Baumgart (“Defendant Baumgart”) RJS Construction Supplies and RJS Demolition and Disposal (“Defendants”) on March 8, 2019. Defendant Baumgart filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication on May 4, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 8, 2020 and Defendant Baumgart replied on September 28, 2020.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint on June 10, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges her vehicle was damaged in a motor vehicle accident on October 6, 2018 due to Defendants’ negligent operation, ownership or entrustment of a motor vehicle. (Compl., ¶MV-2.) Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to amend the Complaint to allege a cause of action for general negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration stating that the factual allegations in the Complaint are not correct and must be amended to allege general negligence based on Defendants’ placement of large metal trash bin placed on a poorly-lit street. (Motion, Perez Decl., p. 3:7-12.) Plaintiff contends that she side-swiped the bin while driving sustaining property damage and personal injuries. (Ibid.)

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).)

Even if the Court were to find that Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to allege the correct facts and cause of action to be inexcusable, there is no apparent prejudice to Defendants from allowing amendment of the Complaint at this time. The Motion for Leave to Amend is unopposed and no trial date is pending. Nor does Defendant Baumgart’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment require denial of leave to amend. (Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280 (holding that if the facts indicate that a plaintiff has a good cause of action which is imperfectly pleaded, the trial court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend instead of granting the motion for summary judgment.)

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).) As discussed above, the Motion is accompanied by a declaration that explains the discovery of actual facts of this case and attaches a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint.

Therefore, Plaintiff Lorena Vanegas’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

In light of the ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, DEFENDANT WILLIAM BAUMGART’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS MOOT.

Plaintiff to give notice.