JUANA VERA DE RODRIGUEZ vs TJX COMPANIES INC, et al.

2024CUPP025008: JUANA VERA DE RODRIGUEZ vs TJX COMPANIES INC, et al. 05/28/2026 in Department 21 Motion LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)

The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

Motions: Motion by Defendant Marshalls of CA, LLC (“Defendant” or “Marshalls”) for leave to file amended answer (opposed).

Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s motion for leave to file the amended answer is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to file and serve the amended answer within 5 days.

Defendant is to give notice within two (2) court days.

Background: This is a negligence and premises liability action. Plaintiff Juana Vera De Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she tripped and fell in a store owned/operated by Defendant Marshalls of CA, LLC (“Defendant” or “Marshalls”). She claims that the dangerous condition was Defendant’s use of a plastic table, laying flat on the floor, to display furniture. This created a tripping hazard. Plaintiff suffered significant injuries, including total left knee replacement surgery.

Discussion:

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, defense counsel explains the reasons for the timing of the motion. She substituted into the case in October 2025, needed time to review the file, and sought a stipulation to amend from Plaintiff’s counsel two months later. There is no indication of undue delay or bad faith. The fact that Defendant pursued a trial continuance based on the intent to file this motion and pursue additional discovery, but has not yet engaged in further discovery, is immaterial. In any event, the moving papers show that Defendant obtained the trial continuance in March 2026, attended an unsuccessful mediation in April 2026, and filed this motion on May 1, 2026. This is sufficient to show diligence and good faith.