This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/29/2021 at 08:10:06 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/13/2019 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA. 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 Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1653

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

AYALA HERMAN ANTONIO

EPPS MELBONY LASHAN

Defendant and Cross Defendant

EPPS MELBONY LASHAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MAHFOUZ RICHARD LOUIS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

ALBAN ARNOLD J

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

8/20/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/20/2020

8/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/20/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint file...)

11/6/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint file...)

Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

11/6/2020: Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 07/22/2020

7/22/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 07/22/2020

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Attorney 585 Dec

7/30/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Attorney 585 Dec

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/30/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Plaintiff 585 Dec

7/30/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Plaintiff 585 Dec

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

3/11/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File...)

1/22/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File...)

Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

8/21/2019: Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/23/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer - Answer

6/14/2019: Answer - Answer

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/8/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/18/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

2/13/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/13/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/13/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketOn the Cross-Complaint filed by HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA on 08/21/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to MELBONY LASHAN EPPS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by: Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint file...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint file...) of 11/06/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint filed by HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA scheduled for 11/06/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 11/06/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of the Cross-Complaint filed by HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA scheduled for 11/06/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/20/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY against Defendant MELBONY LASHAN EPPS on the Complaint filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY on 02/13/2019 for damages of $22,786.69, interest of $2,268.03, and costs of $480.00 for a total of $25,534.72.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketDefault Judgment; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MELBONY LASHAN EPPS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 05/23/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 45.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MELBONY LASHAN EPPS (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 03/13/2019; Service Cost: 45.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/12/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA (Defendant); MELBONY LASHAN EPPS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA (Defendant); MELBONY LASHAN EPPS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: HERMAN ANTONIO AYALA (Defendant); MELBONY LASHAN EPPS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01653    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Ayala, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

(CCP § 473(a))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff United State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Herman Antonio Ayala and Melbony Lashan Epps (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint on July 19, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Motion for Leave to Amend

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff incurred damages of $22,786.69 as a result of Defendants conduct. (Compl., ¶13.) Plaintiff now moves for leave to add allegations of an additional $10,000.00 in damages it incurred for payment of its insured’s bodily injuries claim. (Motion, Duque Decl., ¶¶5-6.)

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).) Where a proposed amendment opening an entirely new substantive area of injury on the eve of trial without any explanation for why the major change had not been made long before, denial of leave is appropriate ordered in the court’s discretion. (Id.)

Also, a motion for leave to file an amended pleading must comply with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1342, which requires a supporting declaration setting 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)-(b).)

Plaintiff’s Motion fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1324. The Motion does not “[s]tate what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(3).) The declaration in support of the Motion also does not comply with the Rule as it does not specify the effect of the amendment, when facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered, and the reasons the request for amendment was not made earlier. As to the effect of the amendment, the Court notes that in requesting to add damages of $10,000.00 Plaintiff will be seeking a judgment that exceeds the jurisdictional limit of this Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).) Yet the Motion fails to address this fact and whether the action would have to be reclassified. Nor are there specific facts regarding when the new facts were discovered and why the Motion was not brought earlier. The declaration contains only a single line that vaguely states that the Motion was brought as soon as reasonably possible after Plaintiff’s counsel became aware of the additional payment. (Motion, Duque Decl., ¶7.) The Court finds this to be insufficient to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1324 or to demonstrate that leave to amend is appropriate.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MAHFOUZ RICHARD L.