2011-00099070-CU-PA

Joann Spaulding vs. Sandra Hancock

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File First Amended Complaint

Filed By: Barron, Deborah

Plaintiff Joann Spaulding’s motion to file first amended complaint is GRANTED.

This is an action for personal injury. Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2009, she was
walking through a parking lot. Defendant Angela Carvajal (“Carvajal”) was driving a
vehicle owned by Defendant Sandra Hancock (“Hancock”) when she drove over
Plaintiff’s foot. The initial complaint was filed on March 10, 2011. Carvajal was
dismissed for failure to timely serve.

Plaintiff now moves to file a first amended complaint to include allegations that
Carvajal was an employee or agent of Hancock’s at the time of the incident. Plaintiff’s
attorney contends that she recently discovered the complaint did not include
Hancock’s name in the first cause of action and that discovery has shown that Caraval
was an employee and or agent of Hancock.

In opposition to the motion, Hancock argues that the true purpose of the amendment is
to circumvent the statutory $15,000 recovery cap under California Vehicle Code
§17151(a). Hancock further argues that Carvajal was not her employee or agent,
rather Carvajal was her au pair, and that Carvajal was not acting within the scope and
course of her employment. Hancock further argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration
is deficient and that Plaintiff had three years from the filing her complaint to recognize
and correct her omission.

Well established judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the
parties in the same lawsuit. The court is required to exercise its discretion liberally to
permit amendment. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in
which denial of leave is justified. There is a strong policy in favor of permitting
amendments to pleadings up to and including trial. If the motion is timely made and the
granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse
permission to amend, and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of a
meritorious cause of action, it is not only error but abuse of discretion. (See, e.g.,
Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Here, Hancock makes no argument that granting the motion will result in prejudice to
her. Rather, Hancock’s arguments go to the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint and whether
she has sufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof. Hancock, however, may
challenge the legal sufficiency of the complaint or evidentiary issues by way of a
pleadings challenge or motion for summary judgment/adjudication. The Court also
finds that while Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration is not the model of clarity, it is sufficient
for these purposes.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may file and serve a first amended complaint (“FAC”) by no later than May 23,
2014, Response to be filed and served within 10 days thereafter, 15 days if the FAC is
served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiff is
requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the FAC to facilitate the filing
of the pleading.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.