2016-00198951-CU-PA

J. Pilar Alcantar vs. Randel McCarty

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Amendment Complaint

Filed By: Carrion, Al J.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 7, 2015. On August 15, 2016, Plaintiffs J. Pilar Alcantar and Sandra Patino filed a complaint (the “Complaint”), in which they allege they were rear-ended by Defendant Randel McCarty. Defendant Darlene McCarty is alleged to be a co-owner of the vehicle driven by Randal McCarty. The Complaint is a form personal injury complaint, which alleges two causes of action: motor vehicle and general negligence.

Plaintiff J. Pilar Alcantar committed suicide on July 9, 2017. Plaintiffs now move for

leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add a third cause of action for wrongful death on behalf of Plaintiff Sandra Patino, the decedent’s spouse. Plaintiffs maintain their investigation suggests the decedent’s suicide was caused in part by the injuries he sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiffs’ motion fails to comply with several requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Specifically, the motion does not state what “allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading” and “where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(3).) For example, although the motion states that Plaintiffs desire to add a third cause of action for wrongful death, the Court notes that additional changes have been made to the proposed First Amended Complaint besides the addition of a third cause of action attachment, and these additional changes are not specified in the motion or otherwise addressed. Further, the declaration accompanying the motion does not include all of the information required by rule 3.1324(b). The declaration neither states “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered[,]” nor “[t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)

(3), (4).) The motion fails for these procedural shortcomings.

The deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ supporting declaration also raises issues concerning the motion’s merits. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing, inter alia, that the motion should be denied because Plaintiffs unjustifiably delayed in seeking to amend the

complaint, which prejudices them. Trial is scheduled for May 21, 2018, and Defendants contend three months until the discovery cut off is not enough time to conduct discovery on a new wrongful death cause of action.

It is well settled that the Court “has discretion to deny leave to amend when the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 6:655, p. 6-186 [citing Hirsa v Super. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490].) A motion to amend need not be granted when the proposed amendment is presented belatedly and without good explanation. (See, e.g., Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [“‘[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may-of itself-be a valid reason for

denial.’ [Citation.]”]; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159 [stating appellate courts are less likely to find an abuse of discretion where the proposed amendment was “offered after long unexplained delay” or “where there is a lack of diligence”]; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613 [“The law is well settled that a long deferred presentation of the proposed amendment without a showing of excuse for the delay is itself a significant factor to uphold the trial court’s denial of the amendment.”].)

Here, the decedent committed suicide in July 2017, and Plaintiffs did not file their motion to amend the Complaint until five months later, after a trial date had been scheduled. Without the required information concerning when Plaintiffs discovered the facts which gave rise to the amended allegations and the reasons why the motion to amend was not made earlier, the Court cannot determine whether leave to amend should be granted.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.