On 03/08/2019 LORENA VANEGAS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against WILLIAM BAUMGART. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******2438
03/08/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
VANEGAS LORENA
RJS DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL
BAUMGART WILLIAM
RJS CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES
STOCK JEREMY DANIELS
PEREZ RAYMOND
5161 Pomona Blvd Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90022
MASLAUSKI STEVEN
SIMMS RYAN
11/2/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint (1st)
11/25/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment
11/24/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment
11/24/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
11/4/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
10/7/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
9/30/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
1/9/2020: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial
1/9/2020: Answer - Answer
5/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
6/8/2020: Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint for General Negligence
6/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
6/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
6/17/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
6/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Court's Continuance of Hearing Defendant William Baumgart's Motion for Summary Judgment
3/8/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/8/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
3/8/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
Hearing03/11/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing11/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketAnswer First Amended; Filed by: William Baumgart (Defendant); As to: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff)
DocketMinute Order (Trial Setting Conference)
DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 12/15/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 12/15/2020; Result Type to Held
DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk
DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/11/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff); As to: William Baumgart (Defendant); RJS Construction Supplies (Defendant); RJS Demolition and Disposal (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff); As to: William Baumgart (Defendant); RJS Construction Supplies (Defendant); RJS Demolition and Disposal (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff); As to: William Baumgart (Defendant); RJS Construction Supplies (Defendant); RJS Demolition and Disposal (Defendant)
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Lorena Vanegas (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
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.