16-CIV-01701 ED RODEMEYER, ET AL. VS. SILICON SEGWAY, ET AL.

ED RODEMEYER SILICON SEGWAY
WILLIAM C. DRESSER JEFFREY S. BEHAR

PLAINTIFF BONNIE RODEMEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. RODEMEYER, JR., AND PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS KRISTINA L. NELSON, MICHAEL J. RODEMEYER, AND EDWARD E. RODEMEYER ILL BEING THE HEIRS OF DECEDENT ED RODEMEYER, WILL MOVE THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiffs Ed Rodemeyer and Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiffs”) to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Defendants Professional Computing Solutions, Inc. dba Silicon Segway and Jim Heldberg (“Defendants”) ask that this motion be denied for failure to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a). While Plaintiffs did not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted and amended, by page, paragraph and line number, Plaintiffs nevertheless describe the changes, and identify the paragraphs of the proposed changes. Accordingly, the court proceeds to address the merits of the motion. Plaintiffs are admonished in the future though to comply with CRC Rule 3.1324.

Plaintiffs also filed and served a late reply on February 21, 2019. The court has considered it this time, but Plaintiffs are to comply with the filing and service requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 in the future or else the court will be inclined to disregard such late-filed papers.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or correct a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).) The court may also, in its discretion, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars. (Ibid.) The court’s discretion is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) If the motion to amend is timely made and granting the motion to amend will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse to allow amendment, and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d, 527, 530.) The court’s discretion to impose conditions on leave to amend the complaint extends only to those conditions which are just. (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.) The court usually does not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, but undoubtedly has discretion to deny leave where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action or defense. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 (disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407).)

The only prejudice shown by Defendants in allowing leave to amend concerns the punitive damages claims in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. Defendants previously moved for summary adjudication as to the claims for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint, which the court granted. (See Decl. of Kelly A. Ward, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint seeks to once again include claims for punitive damages, yet Plaintiffs have not proffered any reason for why they should be allowed to seek punitive damages in light of the court’s prior order. In light of the April 22, 2019 trial date, Defendants would not have sufficient time to challenge the punitive damages claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED except as to the claims for punitive damages in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, which are DENIED as to Defendants. The court finds that denying Plaintiff’s proposed amendment for punitive damages is just and addresses the prejudice to Defendants that would otherwise result from allowing such amendment. However, Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages against Defendant Segway, Inc. may proceed since Segway, Inc., the manufacturer, was not a party to the prior motion for summary adjudication of the claims for punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint should be amended to clarify that punitive damages are alleged only against Segway, Inc.

Plaintiffs are to file and serve their proposed Second Amended Complaint, without any claims for punitive damages against Defendants, by March 5, 2019.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.