EMILIO REYES VS L&R TRANSPORTES INC

Case Number: BC475756    Hearing Date: July 28, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MYRA ROMERO, ET AL
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
L&R TRANSPORTES INC, ET AL.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: VC058731 (formerly BC475756)

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #21
July 28, 2014

Plaintiff Emilio Reyes’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is granted.

Plaintiff, Emilio Reyes filed this action against Defendant for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 5/12/11.

Plaintiff moves for leave to add a claim for punitive damages based upon new evidence discovered during the discovery process. Plaintiff discovered that Defendant’s bus had several violations of Dept. of Transportation regulations and Defendant will not be prejudiced.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP sections 473 and 576.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. 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. However, the court 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. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.) The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the Court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Defendant argues the motion should be denied because (a) the additional facts alleged do not support punitive damages and (b) the claimed relief is ambiguous as to whom it is alleged and (c) there is no causal relationship between the alleged violations and the cause of the accident.

Defendant’s second argument is that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint does not state a claim for punitive damages. The validity of the proposed amendment is not typically considered when ruling on a motion for leave to amend. The validity of the proposed amendment is only considered if the Court determines that the proposed amended complaint not only fails to state a valid claim for punitive damages, but also could not be further amended to do so. The Court cannot make that determination at this time.
It is the general rule that negligence based claims cannot support a claim for punitive damages.
However, “where the injury is not deliberately inflicted by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s safety.” O’Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, 806. “[C]onscious disregard for the safety of others may constitute the malice required to sustain a claim for punitive damages.” Blegen v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 962. The conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice, and justify an award of punitive damages, where a defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of the conduct, yet willfully and deliberately failed to avoid them, as distinguished from mere negligence or recklessness. Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211; Bell v. Sharp Cabrillo Hosp. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1034, 1044. However, as stated above, the Court cannot make the determination of whether the proposed pleading has met this burden. This issue is better resolved by a motion to strike.
Therefore the motion for leave to amend is granted.

Dated this 28th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x