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

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.