Re: Balbir Singh and Sukhjiwan Singh v. Lidder Bros, et al. Superior Court No. 16CECG00979 Hearing Date: April 3, 2018 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Defendant Stone Truck Line’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer

Tentative Ruling:

To grant.

Explanation:

Code of Civil Procedure section 473 authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473; Cherrigan v. City etc. of San Francisco (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 643, 653; see also Trower v. City and County of San Francisco (1910) 157 Cal. 762; Redlinger v. Youle (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 596.) Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, Courts employ a liberal policy in permitting amendments at any stage. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564; Congleton v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 51, 62.) Types of prejudice a court can and will consider are: l) an increase in the amount of discovery that will need to be performed and 2) the potential for delay of trial. (see e.g., Magpali v Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 471, 487.) But the fact that the amendment involves a new legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not “prejudice” that a court will consider. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490.)

Ordinarily, the judge will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Instead, the preferred course of action is to allow an amendment to the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings. (Atkinson v. Elk Corporation (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) Though the judge has discretion to deny leave where the proposed amendment omits or contradicts harmful facts pleaded in the original pleading, absent a showing of mistake or other sufficient excuse for changing the facts. Without such a showing, the amended pleading may be treated as a sham. (Vallejo Develop. Co. v. Beck Develop. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 946; State of Calif. ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.)

Here, Defendant Stone seeks leave to assert the affirmative defense of ‘workers’ comp exclusive remedy.’ The factors weigh in favor of amendment. First, there is no indication of prejudice. The new defense relates to the same general set of facts, discovery is still open, and trial is not set until May 29, 2018. And though the defense may negatively impact Plaintiffs’ chances of prevailing, the fact that the amendment involves a new legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not “prejudice” that a court will consider. (Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal. App.
14

3d at 490.) The new defense is also legally cognizable and is consistent with Defendant’s initial answer. Although it may be contradictory to Defendant’s previous answers to discovery, this contention is irrelevant at this point. What matters right now is whether the new defense contradicts a previously pleaded defense. (Vallejo, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at 946; CCC Information Services, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at 412.) Plaintiffs’ argument that “Defendant has no evidence to support the enumerated affirmative defense” (Opp., filed: 3/20/18 p3 lns5-6) is likewise unavailing because the validity of the proposed amended pleading is irrelevant in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (Atkinson, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at 760.) Finally, Defendant offers a reasonable excuse for the delay – he did not file the initial answer and he failed to amend sooner due to oversight. (Hancock Dec., filed i/s/o Mtn. to Amend: 2/20/18, ¶4.)

Conditions

The court’s discretion to impose conditions on leave to amend the complaint “extends only to those conditions which are just, i.e., intended to compensate the defendants for any inconvenience belated amendment may cause.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642; Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 746, 769-770.)

Here, Plaintiffs request that this court issue an order “precluding the introduction of any undisclosed evidence supporting Defendant’s affirmative defenses.” (Opp., filed: 3/20/18 p6 lns4-5.) Plaintiffs also request sanctions. (Id. at pp 4-5 ¶c.) Neither of these requests are justifiable; both ask this court to impose conditions which extend beyond those which are intended to compensate Plaintiffs for any inconvenience belated amendment may cause. (Armenta, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at 642; Sanai, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at 769-770.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling Issued By: DSB on 03/29/18 (Judge’s initials) (Date)