Case Number: BC685694 Hearing Date: September 19, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

GAYANE BURNAZYAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC685694

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND; CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

September 19, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Gayane Burnazyan filed this action against Defendants, Marriott International, Inc., L.A. Warner Hotel Partners, LLC, Natel Engineering Company, Inc., Natel Engineering Holdings, Inc., Oncore Manufacturing LLC, Oncore Manufacturing Services, Inc., and Oncore LLC for damages arising out of a slip and fall. The fall occurred at the Marriott, where Plaintiff’s employer, Natel, was hosting an event.

2. Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint

a. Relief Sought

The Marriott Defendants filed a cross-complaint against the Natel Defendants for equitable indemnification and related claims. At this time, the Marriott Defendants move to amend the cross-complaint to include contract-based indemnification causes of action.

b. Law Governing Leave to Amend

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. CCP §§473 and 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. 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.

c. Analysis

In this case, the Natel Defendants argue the Marriott Defendants unreasonably delayed in making the motion. They argue the delay will prejudice them, because they have a summary judgment motion scheduled for 10/30/19, and they will not have time to file a new summary judgment motion on the amended claims prior to trial.

Notably, a claim for indemnification does not accrue, for statute of limitations purposes, until the party seeking to be indemnified suffers an actual loss. In other words, unless and until Plaintiff herein prevails against or settles with the Marriott Defendants, the statute of limitations does not begin to run on their claims against the Natel Defendants. Thus, if the Court were to deny this motion, it would create a situation where the Marriott Defendants would potentially sue the Natel Defendants in a separate action after the conclusion of this action. The Court finds it is in the interest of justice to permit all of these claims to be heard contemporaneously.

Importantly, the Marriott Defendants agree that a trial continuance is warranted and agree to such a continuance in the event the motion is granted. Notably, no other party has filed any brief expressing an opinion concerning a trial continuance. The Court is satisfied with the Marriott Defendants’ explanation that the failure to timely plead the contractual claims was due to their attorney’s neglect or mistake. Not permitting these claims to be considered in the case would be an extreme punishment due to the neglect and mistake. The prejudice to the Natel Defendants can be mitigated by continuing the trial date.

The motion for leave to amend is granted. The Marriott Defendants are ordered to file a separate copy of their FACC within ten days. The Natel Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within ten days thereafter.

d. Trial Continuance

The 12/04/19 trial date is advanced to today’s date and continued to Tuesday, 4/07/20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The 11/22/19 FSC is advanced to today’s date and continued to Tuesday, 3/24/20 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 3. All discovery and expert cut-offs are continued to reflect the new trial date.

e. Notice

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.