ELVA LOPEZ NAVARRO, ET AL. VS DELTA AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******1846 Hearing Date: May 10, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file the first amended complaint attached as Exhibit B to their motion within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

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 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.

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC), to add new allegations regarding Doe defendants, ERMC Aviation LLC and ABM Aviation, Inc., and to add new information about Decedent falling off the ramp of the bus and not the airplane. Additionally, new allegations are made against all defendants, and not just Delta, for improperly supervising Decedent and carelessly instructing him to board the bus using the ramp without any assistance. Through discovery, Plaintiffs learned on February 6, 2023, that various employees of ABM and ERMC were involved with the boarding process. It is believed that ABM and ERMC were employed by Delta. The FAC removes LAX World Airports (a public entity) from the first cause of action and adds ERMC and ABM. Further, the original complaint alleged common law negligence against defendant LAX, a public entity. The FAC adds a second cause of action to allege statutory violations under Government code section 835 and 815.2. The FAC also contains a new cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Defendant Delta.

The Court finds Plaintiff has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324 by including a copy of the proposed amended complaint and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, and what allegations are proposed to be deleted. Plaintiffs also explain that they recently learned of Defendants ERMC and ABM’s involvement in this matter. Further, Plaintiffs explained that through meet and confer efforts, they agreed to allege Government code section 835 and 815.2 claims instead of common law claims against a public entity. This is sufficient to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why it was not made earlier.

As Defendants have not opposed the motion for leave to amend, it does not appear any party would be prejudiced by permitting this amendment. Further, trial is set for March 20, 2024; thus, there is sufficient time to conduct discovery and prepare for trial.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file the first amended complaint attached as Exhibit B to their motion within 10 days of this order.

Moving party is directed to give notice.