Case Number: BC646420 Hearing Date: May 29, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Courtney Moore,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIchard marquez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC646420

Hearing Date: May 29, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for leave to File First Amended Answer

Background

Plaintiff Courtney Moore (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on October 17, 2015, she was injured during a motor vehicle collision with defendant Richard Marquez (“Defendant”). The complaint, filed January 12, 2017, alleges causes of action for negligence and motor vehicle. Defendant filed an Answer to the complaint on February 23, 2017.

On May 2, 2018, Defendant filed this instant motion for leave to amend the answer to include an additional affirmative defense of res judicata. Plaintiff opposes this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “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.”

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks to amend the answer to include an affirmative defense of res judicata. Defendant states that Plaintiff litigated this claim initially in small claims court over the property damages arising from the same incident. This claim was litigated in 2016.

In opposition, Plaintiff first argues that Defendant’s motion is “procedurally and fatally defective in that the Defendant’s Notice of Motion fails to specify the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure” under which Defendant brings this motion. (Pl. Opp., at pg. 1.) The Court disagrees. Plaintiff cites no authority that requires this Court to deny with prejudice Defendant’s motion simply because he omitted the Code of Civil Procedure section in the notice of the motion. Further, on the first page of the points and authorities Defendant states and quotes the CCP sections under which he is moving. Plaintiff’s argument would require this Court to improperly put form over substance. As such, the Court will not deny Defendant’s motion based on this procedural defect.

Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not provided sufficient “good cause” to allow an amendment and that Defendant knew of the small claims action before filing the answer. Again, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s analysis. There is no requirement under CCP § 473(a) that the party moving to amend a pleading show “good cause” for amendment. Rather, judicial policy strongly favors liberal amendment. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant has lost any ability to plead new affirmative defenses, but this contention again runs contrary to the principle that judicial policy liberally allows amendment where there is no showing of prejudice to the non-moving party. Plaintiff has failed to allege any prejudice that would occur as a result of the amendment.

Here, the Court finds the liberal policy of allowing amendments to apply in this case. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff in allowing this amendment. Accordingly, the liberal construction of pleadings and liberal allowance of amendments prevail. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is arguing that the proposed amendment is legally untenable, these arguments are better left for a dispositive motion on the merits.

Conclusion and order

Based on the above, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Answer. Defendant is ordered to file and serve his First Amended Answer within 10 days.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future hearings will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: May 29, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court