2018-00242422-CU-PA

Kayla Rumble vs. Lyft, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Amended Complaint

Filed By: Piering, Robert A.

Plaintiff Kayla Rumble’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on February 12, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the accident, she was being driven by defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) driver defendant Clother Dockery, Jr. (“Mr. Dockery”), when he rear-ended a car on the highway at a high rate of speed, causing Plaintiff injuries. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one cause of action for negligence against Lyft, Mr. Dockery, and defendant Hertz Vehicle, LLC.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend to add a second cause of action for gross negligence against Mr. Dockery. (Piering Decl. Ex. A [proposed First Amended Complaint].) Plaintiff asserts that in the course of discovery, she obtained Mr. Dockery’s medical records from the night of the accident, which state: “Tox Screen: Pos THC and Opiates,” and further note that his “medication list do not have THC and opiates listed.” (Id. Ex. B.) Mr. Dockery’s medical records from that night also state that he has had three syncopal (fainting) episodes in the last five years and “was seen by PCP for Holter monitor but never followed up.” (Id.) Plaintiff deposed Mr. Dockery on May 7, 2019, who stated that it would have been reckless to drive with opiates or THC in his system. (Id. Ex. C.) Plaintiff also deposed eyewitness David Wise on June 11, 2019, who testified that Mr. Dockery was driving at least 90 miles per hour and was weaving in and out of traffic. (Id. Ex.D.)

Based on this information, Plaintiff asserts that she has a sufficient factual basis to allege a cause of action for gross negligence against Mr. Dockery, for driving Plaintiff in a Lyft under the influence of opiates and THC and with a history of untreated fainting spells. Plaintiff also seeks to add a prayer for punitive damages.

Mr. Dockery opposes the motion, arguing that the cause of action for gross negligence is not supported by evidence. He contends that a positive toxicity screen is not the same as being under the influence at the time of the accident. He notes that Plaintiff does not contend the accident was the result of a fainting spell. Mr. Dockery further argues that Mr. Wise has contradicted himself previously as to how fast Mr. Dockery was driving and his testimony lacks credibility. Finally, Mr. Dockery argues that Plaintiff fails to allege extreme conduct on the part of Mr. Dockery, which is required for gross negligence.

Lyft and defendant The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) both filed joinders to Mr. Dockery’s opposition.

It is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Super. Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Moreover, Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. The policy of great liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding has been declared by our courts. (Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.) However, courts should not permit an amendment “where it would not serve any useful purpose.” ( Maple Properties v. Harris (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 997, 1012.)

The validity of a proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281.) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.) Defendants are free to challenge the amended pleading by way of appropriate motion.

Plaintiff has presented substantive evidence, obtained in discovery, that Mr. Dockery may have been under the influence of THC and opiates at the time of the accident, that he was driving erratically, and that he had a known but untreated history of fainting spells. For purposes of a motion for leave to amend, this is sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to leave to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for gross negligence against Mr. Dockery. Moreover, punitive damages may be awarded in negligence cases involving despicable conduct done with a conscious disregard of the safety of others. ( Taylor v. Superior Ct. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890.) As set forth above, Mr. Dockery may challenge the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by way of an appropriate motion if he believes the new allegations are deficient.

Plaintiff to file and serve its First Amended Complaint no later than September 27, 2019. Although not required by Court rule or statute, Plaintiff is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended complaint is presented for filing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.