Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco et al vs Uber Technologies Inc et al

Pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 473(a)(1), the court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. The court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) "Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted [citation], provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. [Citation.]" (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

"(a) Contents of motion A motion to amend a pleading before trial 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.

"(b) Supporting declaration 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(a)(b).)

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to state the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. The court disagrees. The declaration of plaintiff's counsel, taken as a whole, explains that the allegedly defamatory conduct was, and is, a continuing pattern of behavior. It is reasonable to infer that it was not a few isolated cases of defendant's statements that constitute the entirety of the cause of action. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the defamatory statements, including the alleged damages to plaintiff, that have resulted in the decision to include the cause of action. The court finds this explanation acceptable.

Defendant next argues that plaintiff has unreasonably delayed bringing the cause of action which has prejudiced plaintiff. Related to this argument is defendant's third, and final, argument that the new cause of action would necessitate additional discovery including a second deposition of plaintiff. There is currently no trial date and the need for additional discovery does not prejudice defendant. The court does understand that it might be prudent for defendant to conduct an additional deposition of plaintiff, related to the new cause of action. Recognizing this, and anticipating a request to do so, the court will specifically allow defendant to conduct an additional deposition that is limited to the defamation cause of action.

Tentative Ruling: Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco et al vs Uber Technologies Inc et al Tentative Ruling: Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco et al vs Uber Technologies Inc et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 06/05/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Summary Adjudication Tentative Ruling On the Court's own motion, the Motion for Summary Adjudication on calendar for Friday, June 5, 2026, at 10 am