This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 16:59:18 (UTC).

ESTATE OF JOO HWAN LEE ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 09/03/2015 ESTATE OF JOO HWAN LEE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3672

  • Filing Date:

    09/03/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Guardian Ad Litems

ESTATE OF JOO HWAN LEE

LEE JI YUNG

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

MT. BALDY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant and Cross Defendant

MT. BALDY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Minors

LEE ANDREW HO

LEE ANNABELLE EUNJEE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD D. HOFFMAN

HOFFMAN RICHARD DALE

Defendant Attorneys

NG JASMINE H

GATES PETER JOHN

COLEMAN JOHN MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL EX PARTE

1/24/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL EX PARTE

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO AND REQUEST TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO AND REQUEST TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

8/3/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Minute Order

10/10/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

1/4/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

1/4/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

2/15/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

3/1/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

3/11/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Summons

5/16/2019: Summons

Cross-Complaint

5/16/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer

6/14/2019: Answer

COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH- AMENDED (NUMBER): FIRST

8/3/2016: COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH- AMENDED (NUMBER): FIRST

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. GORDON PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41 REGARDING MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO FILING DEMURRER

8/17/2017: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. GORDON PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41 REGARDING MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO FILING DEMURRER

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

10/12/2017: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NOTICE OF RULING RE: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER

10/31/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER

94 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Mt. Baldy Homeowners Association (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Summons (on Complaint); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant County of Los Angeles' Motion for Leave to File a C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • NOTICE OF CO-DEFENDANT'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
159 More Docket Entries
  • 03/03/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 93; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 93; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-02-16 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • 1ST AMENDED SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH- AMENDED (NUMBER): FIRST

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Estate of Joo Hwan Lee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Estate of Joo Hwan Lee (Plaintiff); Ji Yung Lee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2015
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC593672    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer; Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

Having considered the moving papers the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2015, Plaintiffs Estate of Joo Hwan Lee, by and through its successor-in-interest Ji Yung Lee; Ji Jyung Lee; Andrew Ho Lee and Annabelle EunJee Lee, by and through their guardian ad litem Ji Yung Lee (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles alleging premises liability and negligence arising from a flood that occurred on August 3, 2014.

On December 8, 2017, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Defendant Mt. Baldy Homeowners Association as a defendant and to allege violations of Government Code sections 835, 815.2, and 820(a), as well as violations of Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480.

On May 16, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Mt. Baldy Homeowners Association seeking equitable indemnification, declaratory relief, and express indemnification.

On October 9, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).

Also on October 9, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles filed a motion to continue trial and related dates pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

Trial is set for January 15, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Los Angeles (“Moving Party”) asks the Court grant leave for Moving Party to amend its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint to allege seven additional affirmative defenses that Moving Party’s prior counsel omitted from the answer.

Moving Party also asks the Court to continue trial and related dates until at least June 25, 2020.

LEGAL STANDARD

Leave to Amend

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) (See id. at p. 1048.)  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state 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.

Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Continuance

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.  The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Moving Party argues there is good cause for it to amend its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint because its recently substituted counsel discovered that the prior counsel failed to include seven affirmative defenses in Plaintiff’s answer.  Moving Party similarly argues there is good cause to grant the requested continuance because Moving Party’s counsel was only recently substituted in this action.  Moving Party’s new counsel first appeared on August 14, 2019.

The Court finds Moving Party will be prejudiced if this motion is not granted because it will be deprived from asserting its proposed affirmative defenses at trial.  The Court also finds the requested continuance is properly granted to provide Moving Party and the other parties in this action adequate time to conduct discovery on the viability of these affirmative defenses.  No party has opposed either motion.

The motions are GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proposed first amended answer attached as Exhibit A to the motion for leave to amend the answer within 5 days of this order.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to June 25, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to June 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.  Both hearings are to be held in Department 4A of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.  All discovery cut-off dates are continued to relate to the June 25, 2020 trial date.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.