MEGAN DILLEY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS SUCCESSOR VS. PG&E CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC23607138 - October 1, 2025 Hearing date: October 1, 2025 Case number: CGC23607138 Case title: MEGAN DILLEY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS SUCCESSOR VS. PG&E CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23607138 | Case Title: | | MEGAN DILLEY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS SUCCESSOR VS. PG&E CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File A Third Amended Complaint | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Wednesday, October 1, 2025, Line 2, PLAINTIFF MEGAN DILLEY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT STEVEN DODGE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File A Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Megan Dilley's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 576, which states that "[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order." Because judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Edmon & Karnow, CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL 6:638 (Rutter 2023); see also Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Indeed, "it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment." (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Good cause appearing and such order being in the furtherance of justice, the court grants leave to Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. Whether Plaintiff's premises liability cause of action and punitive damages claims are viable are issues better addressed at a latter time in a proper posture. Concerns regarding the trial date must be addressed to the master calendar department.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |