Case Number: BC719558 Hearing Date: May 15, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff Armando Alcala (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Performance Team LLC, Golden Springs Development Company, LLC, and Advanced Restoration Group (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged premises liability, negligence, and a violation of Labor Code section 3706 for an incident where Plaintiff fell through a skylight while cleaning solar panels on a roof on June 21, 2018.

On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint to name Thrifty Oil, Co. as Defendant Doe 1.

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to allege causes of action for strict liability and a breach of implied warranty against a new defendant.

Trial is set for February 24, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint to allege strict liability and breach of implied warranty against a new Defendant, Arcalight, based on newly discovered facts.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), 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.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues there is good cause to allege new causes of action of strict liability and breach of implied warranty against a new defendant, Arcalight, due to the February 1, 2019 discovery that Arcalight manufactured the skylight that Plaintiff fell through. (Bahari Decl., ¶¶ 4, 12.)

The Court finds there is good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff has only recently discovered Arcalight’s identity and culpability. Plaintiff has submitted a separate declaration detailing the effect of the amendment would be to, as previously stated, name Arcalight as a Defendant and allege strict liability and breach of implied warranty against it. (Bahari Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has stated the amendment is necessary and proper because it provides a clarification and completeness to the allegations, allows Plaintiff’s causes of action to be fully litigated, and does not prejudice Defendants. (Bahari Decl., ¶ 11.)

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to file the amended complaint attached to this motion as Exhibit A within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.