On 07/28/2017 BELINDA KIM JARVIS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SALVADOR PEREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, MICHAEL P. VICENCIA, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Other.
Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
MICHAEL P. VICENCIA
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
STEPHEN M. MOLONEY
DOES 1 TO 100
ZAVIDOW ROBERT M. ESQ.
DOUCETTE JASON R. ESQ.
NGUYEN MINH TRI
DOUCETTE JASON REILLY
GONONG CHRISTINE JUNGCO
SNYDER BRADLEY A. ESQ.
SNYDER BRADLEY ALLEN ESQ.
OLIVER SUSAN LYNN
VUKOVICH DANIELLE JASMINE
SNYDER BRADLEY ALLEN
8/10/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
6/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)
6/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)
6/14/2021: Special Verdict - SPECIAL VERDICT (REDACTED)
1/7/2021: Witness List
1/7/2021: Exhibit List
10/21/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN A MSC
8/11/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 16
8/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14
8/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
4/21/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY BY MENTAL EXAM
3/20/2020: Proof of Service by Mail
3/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
1/31/2020: Case Management Statement
8/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
10/16/2018: Association of Attorney
9/10/2018: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
8/2/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED ANSWERS WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $900 FROM DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL; MEM
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff); Salvador Perez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff); Salvador Perez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 3:31 PM in Department S26, Michael P. Vicencia, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 06/28/2021); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department S26, Michael P. Vicencia, Presiding; Jury Trial - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketSpecial Verdict ((redacted)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketJury Instructions; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED ANSWERS WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $300 FROM DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL;Read MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketReceipt; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswerRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Salvador Perez (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC670261 Hearing Date: January 17, 2020 Dept: 28
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff Belinda Kim Jarvis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Salvador Perez (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges a violation of Civil Code section 3342, negligence, and premises liability for a dog bite that occurred on January 12, 2017.
On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).
Trial is set for June 17, 2020.
Plaintiff asks the Court to grant leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to allege intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages against Defendant because of Defendant’s a bad faith bankruptcy filing.
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.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action 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, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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, subdivision (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.
Plaintiff argues there is good cause for leave to file the FAC to allege intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages against Defendant because Defendant provided false deposition testimony and asked a witness to lie.
Defendant argues there are insufficient facts alleged to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court disagrees. The FAC alleges Defendant intentionally committed perjury and sought for a witness to lie about the underlying facts, which caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant’s intentional outrageous conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. (See Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.)
Defendant argues there are insufficient facts alleged to seek punitive damages. Again, the Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s allegation of Defendant’s commission of an intentional tort enables Plaintiff to seek punitive damages. (See McAfee v. Ricker (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 630, 632-634.)
Defendant lastly argues he is immune from Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action based on the litigation privilege.
The motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed FAC attached as Exhibit 5 to Christine J. Gonong’s declaration within 30 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases