This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 01:44:58 (UTC).

HOPE CLARIZIO VS ESTATE OF MOLLY KATHLEEN LYNCH ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/08/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by HOPE CLARIZIO against ESTATE OF MOLLY KATHLEEN LYNCH in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7280

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CLARIZIO HOPE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

KAM YU HUNG

ESTATE OF MOLLY KATHLEEN LYNCH

SUMEKH BEHROOZ

 

Court Documents

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

5/17/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

5/17/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/17/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY CHANCE

7/10/2018: NOTICE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY CHANCE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/13/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANT ESTATE OF MOLLY KATHLEEN LYNCH; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

8/1/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANT ESTATE OF MOLLY KATHLEEN LYNCH; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Objection

11/20/2018: Objection

Notice

12/14/2018: Notice

Opposition

12/17/2018: Opposition

Minute Order

1/9/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/9/2019: Minute Order

Supplemental Declaration

1/11/2019: Supplemental Declaration

Minute Order

1/23/2019: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

1/23/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Request for Dismissal

5/20/2019: Request for Dismissal

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

3/8/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Hope Clarizio (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Behrooz Sumekh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • at 7:21 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 01/23/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Supplemental Declaration (defendants sumekh and kam's supplemental submission of documentation); Filed by Behrooz Sumekh (Defendant); Yu Hung Kam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 3:46 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Minute Order ((Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 05/17/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Behrooz Sumekh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Behrooz Sumekh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Behrooz Sumekh (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Hope Clarizio (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Hope Clarizio (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Hope Clarizio (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697280    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Hope Clarizio (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Estate of Molly Kathleen Lynch, Behrooz Sumekh, and Yu Hung Kam.  The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence for an incident that occurred on February 25, 2016.

On May 17, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Behrooz Sumekh filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Estate of Molly Kathleen Lynch seeking indemnification, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On May 23, 2019, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Behrooz Sumekh with prejudice.

On December 13, 2019, Defendant Estate of Molly Kathleen Lynch filed a motion for leave to amend its answer pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure section 473, subdivision (a).

Trial is set for November 20, 2019.

///

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Estate of Molly Kathleen Lynch (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court for leave to file an amended answer to include an affirmative defense under Probate Code sections 550, 554, 9351, and 9390.

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.) (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.)

DISCUSSION

Moving Party argues there is good cause for him to amend its answer to include an affirmative defense relating to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file a creditor’s claim and, thus, limiting Moving Party’s liability to its insurance policy limit.  Moving Party became aware of Plaintiff’s failure to file a probate claim over the summer of 2019, after the Court dismissed the action on May 23, 2019.  (Bale Decl., ¶ 8.)  That dismissal was vacated on October 23, 2019.

Plaintiff attacks the merits of Moving Party’s affirmative defense in arguing Plaintiff filed a creditor’s claim, but it was rejected unbeknownst to Plaintiff.  (Verlato Decl., 3.)  This argument is properly reserved for trial.

Plaintiff also argues that she intends to reopen the probate of estate to present a late claim on the basis of fraud.  (Verlato Decl., 6.)  This may be a good strategy, but it does not show there is no good cause for Moving Party to file an amended answer.

Rather, the Court finds Moving Party will be prejudiced if this motion is not granted because Moving Party will be deprived from asserting its proposed affirmative defense at trial.  As such, the motion is properly granted.

///

CONCLUSION

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proposed first amended answer attached as Exhibit F to Heather Bale’s declaration within 5 days of this order.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.