This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2020 at 05:19:19 (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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1653

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • 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

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

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

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

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

7/19/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

7/19/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Motion

7/19/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Motion

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

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/16/2022
  • Hearing02/16/2022 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • Hearing06/14/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • Hearing06/14/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: MELBONY LASHAN EPPS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Attorney 585 Dec; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Plaintiff 585 Dec; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketDefault entered as to MELBONY LASHAN EPPS; On the Complaint filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY on 02/13/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY on 02/13/2019, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, does 1-40

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment on the Complaint/Dismissal scheduled for 06/14/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
19 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.