RYLAN JOHN BURNETT v. ELIJAH DASHAWN TAYLOR, ET AL.

RYLAN JOHN BURNETT

v.

ELIJAH DASHAWN TAYLOR, ET AL.

PROCEDURAL/FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff Rylan John Burnett

filed a judicial form complaint against Defendants Annette Lerma (Annette), 2 Elijah Dashawn

Taylor, and Angelena Lerma (Angelena). Plaintiff alleged three causes of action: (1) motor

vehicle negligence; (2) general negligence; and (3) negligent entrustment.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 12, 2023, at the intersection of Central Avenue and El

Prado Road in the City of Chino, the Defendants were negligent in operating, controlling, and

entrusting a motor vehicle causing a motor vehicle collision that severely injured Plaintiff.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint under

California Code of Civil Procedure3 sections 473, subdivision (a), and 576. This motion first came

2 To assist the reader with iden fying the par es, certain par es will be referred to by their given names “for purposes of clarity, not out of disrespect.” (Young v. McCoy (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1082, fn. 2.)

3 All further code references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless stated otherwise.

before the Court on August 28, 2026, and the Court continued the motion to review Defendant

Taylor’s untimely opposition and Plaintiff’s untimely reply.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

Under Section 473, subdivision (a)(1), in furtherance of justice and upon terms as may be

proper, the Court may allow a party to amend pleadings. Section 576 also provides, “Any 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.”

Motions for leave to amend are left to the sound discretion of the court. (§ 473.)

Procedurally, a motion to amend a pleading must: (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. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

In addition, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and 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. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Analysis

Procedurally, Plaintiff complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a). He

provided a redlined proposed complaint which documented the deletions and additions and

provided a proposed complaint which included all the proposed changes. (Yazdi Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Ex.

1 and 2.)

Regarding rule 3.1324(b), Plaintiff’s declaration does include the effect of the amendment

on the matter, why the amendment is necessary and proper, and when the facts that gave rise to

the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason why the request was not made earlier.

(Yazdi Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 10-11,14.)

In opposition, Defendant Taylor argues that Plaintiff’s motion is prejudicial because it is

untimely. Taylor specifically refers to the traffic collision report and the incident investigation

reports being drafted in August 2023 and that Officer Asbee’s deposition on April 3, 2026,

revealed no new information. Taylor also argues that the addition of punitive damages offers a

new theory of liability, which would be prejudicial given that trial is six months away. Taylor

further argues that Plaintiff does not allege the prima facie elements for punitive damages in his

proposed first amended complaint.

While Taylor is correct that the traffic collision report and incident investigation report

were drafted in August 2023 and that Officer Asbee’s deposition may not have offered new facts,

Taylor does not address the information that was procured from his deposition on April 15, 2026

and Angelena’s deposition on April 13, 2026. These testimonies show that on the night of the

incident Taylor had two to four alcoholic drinks, that Taylor was aware that after two drinks he

would become intoxicated, that Angelena was aware that Taylor drank that night, and despite both

Taylor and Angela knowing the dangers of drinking, Angelena consented to Taylor driving her

vehicle. Furthermore, this had occurred in their relationship more than one time. (Yazdi Decl.

Exh. 5, 70:15-16, 71:1-3, 78:7-19, 119:18-22; Exh. 6, 46:20-22; 121:16-20.) This is included in

Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint. (Proposed FAC, p. 6.)

Given that Plaintiff filed his leave to amend a month after obtaining this information, the

motion was timely and Plaintiff provides a sufficient explanation for why this amendment was not

sought earlier.

Taylor’s argument that the addition of punitive damages is a new “cause of action” and

brings another theory of liability is without merit. Punitive damages are a type of damage. In other

words, it is a remedy and not a cause of action.

Lastly, it is not appropriate for the Court to consider whether Plaintiff has met the prima

facie elements of punitive damages at this stage. If Taylor believes that Plaintiff has not made a

prima facie showing, Taylor may file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended

complaint.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first

amended complaint. The first amended complaint shall be filed within ten (10) court days from

the date of this order.

Counsel for the moving party is ordered to provide notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10