On 05/29/2018 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against EDGAR FLOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
MAHFOUZ RICHARD L. II
MAHFOUZ RICHARD LOUIS II
WASSON DAVID B. ESQ.
WASSON DAVID BRADLEY ESQ.
VALDEZ LARRY ALLEN TIRADOR
WASSON DAVID B.
VALDEZ LARRY T.
7/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND FIST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ...)
3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
3/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/18/2020
1/22/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1/22/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
1/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE)
12/10/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER) OF 12/10/2019
12/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)
10/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
10/28/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION SUPPORT OF CONSOLIDATION
10/28/2019: Brief - BRIEF SUPPORT OF CONSOLIDATION
10/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
6/13/2019: Association of Attorney - ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
6/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)
10/3/2018: Other - - Other - Minute Order
7/27/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
5/29/2018: SUMMONS -
Hearing11/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing10/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Fist Amended Complaint) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Fist Amended Complaint; ...) of 07/23/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Fist Amended Complaint; ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Fist Amended Complaint) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 37; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Edgar Flores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer to Cross-Complaint; Filed by Edgar Flores (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCROSS-COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT - DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMFLAINT FOR SUBROGATION RECOVERYRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC708009 Hearing Date: July 23, 2020 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: July 23, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC708009
CASE NAME: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Edgar Flores
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
OPPOSING PARTIES: Edgar Flores
TRIAL DATE: None
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
OPPOSITION: None as of July 21, 2020
REPLY: No opposition filed.
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file the proposed FAC within ten days of this date and to give notice.
This is a subrogation complaint arising out of Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”)’s automobile insurance policy issued to non-party, Casey Davis (“Davis”). Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 13, 2017, Defendant Edgar Flores’s (“Defendant”) automobile collided with a vehicle driven by Davis, causing Plaintiff to pay Davis in accordance with the insurance policy in the total amount of $25,676.58. Plaintiff alleges that it has demanded payment from Defendants and that they have failed and refused to pay this sum. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to subrogation for the total amount plus interest.
Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The motion is unopposed.
California law holds that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) “Assuming proper notice, the trial court has wide discretion in determining whether to allow the amendment, but the appropriate exercise of that discretion requires the trial court to consider a number of factors: ‘including the conduct of the moving party and the belated presentation of the amendment.
The law is well settled that a long-deferred presentation of the proposed amendment without a showing of excuse for the delay is itself a significant factor to uphold the trial court's denial of the amendment.” (Leader v. Health Ind. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) “The power to permit amendments is interpreted very liberally as long as the plaintiff does not attempt to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” (Herrera v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 255, 259.) The court, however, has the discretion to deny an amendment that fails to state a cause of action or defense. (Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230 (Foxborough).)
A party requesting leave to amend must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. A motion to amend a pleading before trial must state which allegations were deleted from and which allegations were added to the previous pleading and identify the changes “by page, paragraph, and line number.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)
Additionally, “[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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a FAC to plead additional damages for property damage payments made to Davis. (Motion, 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff’s operative Complaint pleads that $25,676.58 was paid but Plaintiff contends that the updated total damages are $26,422.93. (Motion, 3.) Plaintiff contends that it filed the instant motion as soon as it learned of the updated damages. (Id.)
Further, Plaintiff submits the declaration of its attorney, Joseph Duque (“Duque”) in support of the instant motion. Duque attests that the proposed FAC seeks to amend page 3, line 14 and page 4, line 3 of the original Complaint to include additional damages, for a total sum of $26,422.93. (Duque Decl. ¶ 8.) Further, Duque submits a copy of the proposed FAC. (Duque Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit B.)
Duque’s declaration is sufficient to meet the procedural requirements of rule 3.1324(b). The court now turns to the substantive merits of the motion.
B. Substantive Considerations
Generally, motions for leave to amend will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the court and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party. (See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [“ ‘[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.’ [Citations.] Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” [Citation.]’ ”]; Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 490.) Indeed, “courts are much more critical of proposed amendments ... when offered after long unexplained delay or on the eve of trial [citations], or where there is a lack of diligence, or there is prejudice to the other party [citations].” (Permalab-Metalab Equipment Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 465, 472.)
As discussed above, Duque attests that Plaintiff’s proposed FAC seeks to amend page 3, line 14 and page 4, line 3 of the original Complaint in order to allege additional damages, for a new total of $26,422.93. The motion is unopposed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file the proposed FAC within ten days of this date and to provide notice.