2012-00129304-CU-PA

Steven Paul Palacios vs. Rodney Clayton Logan

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File Amended Complaint

Filed By: Weinberger, Joseph B.

Plaintiff Steven Palacios’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted.

In this personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on
August 5, 2010, Plaintiff seeks leave to substitute “The Estate of Rodney Clayton
Logan, Deceased” in the place of “Rodney Clayton Logan” and to amend the damages
sought to the available insurance proceeds as authorized by Probate Code §§ 550-
555.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of
justice… That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the
proceeding, has been established policy in this state…resting on the fundamental
policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118
Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters
between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court’s discretion will usually be
exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa
Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie V. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596
(citing text). Howard v. County of San Diego (2010)184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.”
California Civil Procedure Before Trial (2012, Rutter) § 6:638 – 6:339.)

Defendant Susan Logan opposed the motion on the basis that the statute of limitations
as to The Estate expired either on March 30, 2013, one year from Mr. Logan’s death
pursuant to CCP § 366.2(b), or on August 5, 2013, one year after the two year statute
of limitations applicable to a personal injury cause of action expired pursuant to
Probate Code § 551. However, the validity of a proposed amendment is generally not
considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend in the first instance, and the
Court declines to do so at this point. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior
Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [disapproved on other grounds in Kransco
th
v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4 390, 407.] Defendant is
free to test the sufficiency of the amended complaint by way of demurrer or other
appropriate motion.

In addition, the Court notes that the authority cited by Defendant to argue that the
amendment should not be permitted involved a situation where the complaint alleged
in the body of the complaint that the decedent caused the plaintiff’s injuries but never
designated the decedent or the decedent’s estate as a defendant and later simply tried
to add the decedent’s estate as a defendant. (Ingram v. Superior Court (1979) 98
Cal.App.3d 483.) Thus the Court found that the amendment was barred by the statute
of limitations because it was clear that neither decedent nor the decedent’s estate
were ever named in the complaint nor fictitiously designated and thus the attempt to
add the decedent’s estate after the statute of limitations had run was not permitted. (Id
. at 492.) That case would not show that the proposed FAC is barred by the statute of
limitations as a matter of law given that the complaint here designated the decedent as
a defendant at all times.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed amended complaint no later than May 27,
2014. The Court will not deem the proposed first amended complaint filed and served.

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