Motion for Leave to Amend
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to Amend in Department 36
Tentative Ruling
The following is the Courts tentative ruling granting Plaintiff Delma Jrmar Jeffersons (Plaintiff) unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint. This is a personal injury action arising from a car accident that occurred on September 27, 2020. The original complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Samuel Gene Dana (Dana), Denise G. McCarney (McCarney), and Does 1-25. On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed various amendments substituting Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, California, Inc. (collectively Toyota) in lieu of fictitious defendants.
Plaintiff now moves for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 472, 473(a)(1) and 576 and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. As a preliminary issue, the Court notes Code of Civil Procedure § 472 is inapplicable to this motion, as that section sets forth when an amended pleading may be filed without first obtaining leave of court. No party filed an opposition. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a)(1) grants a court discretion to allow a party to amend a pleading in furtherance of justice.
The section is construed liberally with the object of affording every litigant his day in court and to render substantial justice between the parties. (Kauffman v. Bobo & Wood (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 322, 323.) Courts will grant a motion to amend where it is timely made and will not prejudice the opposing party. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) The original complaint, filed on form PLD-PI-001, asserted causes of action only for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.
The proposed, non-form amended complaint removes Dana and McCarney as defendants and drops the negligence causes of action asserted against them. Instead, the proposed amended complaint asserts eight causes of action, including a cause of action for punitive damages, against the Toyota Defendants and Does 1-25 based on new allegations that defects in the vehicle manufactured by Toyota contributed to Plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiff discovered the basis for these new allegations on June 14, 2023. (Plaintiff
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to Amend in Department 36
Decl., ¶ 6.) While over a year has passed since the discovery of the basis for the new causes of action, the Court notes Plaintiff has made several prior unsuccessful attempts to amend the complaint. Accordingly, the Court finds the motion was made within a reasonable time. The Court further finds there is no prejudice to Toyota in permitting amendment to assert the new causes of action as the consolidated action already involves product liability claims by another plaintiff against Toyota. The motion for leave to file an amendment complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint no later than Tuesday, August 27, 2024. A copy of this order should be presented to the clerk at the time of filing.
***
This tentative ruling shall become the Courts final ruling unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its request for hearing. The parties may appear remotely through the use of Zoom. The parties may join the Zoom session by audio and/or video through the link/telephone number which can be obtained by contacting the clerk of the court at dept36@saccourt.ca.gov or (916) 874-7661 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled hearing.
In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes per side. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.
Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 08/09/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to Amend in Department 36
at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away.
Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, the order will be effective immediately. No formal order or other notice will be required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)