Case Number: BC616671 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 98

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

LINDA HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAPRI URBAN BALDWIN, LLC; DEDICATED BUILDING SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: BC616671

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. 98

1:30 p.m.

January 16, 2018

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff Linda Hunter (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Capri Urban Baldwin, LLC (“Capri”) and Dedicated Building Services (“DBS”) for premises liability relating to a February 7, 2015 slip and fall. On July 5, 2017, the parties entered a stipulation allowing Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for general negligence. Plaintiff now seeks leave of the court to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) adding a prayer for punitive damages against Capri.

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)

A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)

This action arises out of a slip and fall incident at the entrance to a shopping mall owned and operated by Capri. Plaintiff argues Capri had actual knowledge that there was a dangerous condition because there had been prior slip and falls in the same area, and that it placed cost savings above patron safety. On this basis, Plaintiff seeks to file a SAC adding a prayer for punitive damages as to Capri.

Plaintiff contends Capri made multiple misrepresentations throughout the initial stages of discovery to prevent Plaintiff from learning about the prior falls, and that without warning to Plaintiff’s counsel, Capri destroyed the walking surface—the dangerous condition—further preventing Plaintiff from discovery. Plaintiff learned of these facts only after taking six depositions of Capri, its contractors, and a former employee.

Capri argues there is no possible basis for a punitive damages award against it, and therefore, the Motion for leave to amend should be denied. Capri requests that the court take judicial notice of a California Drought Report. The request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).)

In the alternative, Capri argues that if the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion, the trial and all trial-related dates should be continued. Capri argues that it will need time to prepare a motion to strike, and to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiff’s new allegations.

In ruling on a motion for leave to amend the complaint, the court does not consider the merits of the proposed amendment, because “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.” (Kittredge, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.) Therefore, the Court will not consider the merits of whether Plaintiff’s proposed amendment alleges sufficient facts as to punitive damages.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file her Second Amended Complaint within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

To avoid prejudice to Capri, the Court grants Capri’s request to continue trial and trial-related dates. The current trial date of February 20, 2018 is advanced to this date and continued to May 10, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 98. The current Final Status Conference date of February 2, 2018 is advanced to this date and continued to April 26, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 98. All trial-related dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT98@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 16th day of January 2018

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court