Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 20STCV24771, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV24771 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 Dept: L
Plaintiffs A.C., a minor, by and
through her Guardian ad Litem, Evangelina Hernandez, E.C., a minor, by and
through his Guardian ad Litem, Evangelina Hernandez, and R.C., a minor, by and
through his Guardian ad Litem, Evangelina Hernandez’s motion for leave to amend
is GRANTED, but not until the period of May 11, 2023, and May 31, 2023.
The matter arises out of the death of Noah
Cuatro (“Noah”) resulting from the alleged failure of defendants County of Los
Angeles (“Defendant County”) and Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services’
(“Defendant Hathaway”) failure to remove Cuatro from his parents’ custody. This
action is brought by A.C., E.C., R.C. (“minor Plaintiffs”), siblings of Noah,
and Evangelia Hernandez (“Hernandez”), grandmother of Noah and guardian ad
litem of minor Plaintiffs. The initial complaint was filed on July 1, 2020.
After multiple demurrers and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the
operative Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 14, 2022.
The Fourth Amended Complaint asserts causes
of action for:
1.
Wrongful
Death against Defendant County
2.
Negligence
against Defendant County
3.
Wrongful
Death – Negligent Retention & Supervision against Defendant County
4.
Wrongful
Death – Negligence, against Defendant Hathaway
5.
Survival
Action – Negligence against Defendant Hathaway
6.
Survival
Action – Negligence against Defendant County
7.
Wrongful
Death – Negligence against Does 31-60
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs A.C., E.C., and
R.C., brought this Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs A.C., a minor, by and
through her Guardian ad Litem, Evangelina Hernandez, E.C., a minor, by and
through his Guardian ad Litem, Evangelina Hernandez, and R.C., a minor, by and
through his Guardian ad Litem, Evangelina Hernandez’s motion for leave to amend
is GRANTED.
Evidentiary
Objections: Defendant County’s evidentiary objections are overruled in their
entirety. Specifically, as to the objections to the declarations of Ms.
Hernandez and Mathew Hernandez as immaterial.
Plaintiffs
A.C., E.C., and R.C. (“Plaintiffs”) move for leave to a fifth amended complaint
to add individual claims relating to abuse and neglect suffered by each of
them. Plaintiffs represent that recently, in February and March 2023, facts
came to light that Plaintiffs A.C., E.C., and R.C. were also subjected to abuse
and neglect, and that the County of Los Angeles (“County”) had a reasonable
suspicion that they were being abused and neglected yet breached their
mandatory duty and failed to report the suspicions.
CCP § 473(a)(1) states: “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 by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any
other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or
demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the
adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any
pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an
answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”
Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed
matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is
a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39
Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v.
ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are
bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the
complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the
adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)
Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must:
(1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be
serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted
from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration
that accompanies the motion, stating: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why
the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the
amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for
amendment was not made earlier.
Plaintiff has complied with the
procedural requirements of CRC 3.1324(a). Plaintiff has also submitted the
declaration of counsel in compliance with CRC 3.1324(b). Counsel represents
that the purpose of the proposed amendments is for justice to be served on
behalf of Minor Plaintiffs A.C., E.C., and R.C and Defendant County to be held
responsible for its actions which caused at a minimum trauma to the children,
but which could have also resulted in delays in cognitive development. The
proposed amendments have the effect of creating a new negligence cause of
action in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Fifth Amendment Complaint. The proposed
amendments are necessary and proper to address and adjudicate allegations of
abuse and neglect that have come to light to have been perpetrated against
A.C., E.C., and R.C. as a result of County’s negligence and breach of mandatory
duties. The facts giving rise to the proposed amendments were discovered in
mid-February and March 2023 when the deposition of County employee Lizbeth
Hernandez Aviles was taken on February 17, 2023 and simultaneously Plaintiff
E.C. began disclosing the abuse he and his siblings had suffered. The request
for amendment was not made earlier because the facts leading to the proposed
amendments first came to light between mid-February and March 2023. The facts
that came to light were not included in previous DCFS records that had been
produced to the parties to this action. (Claypool Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)
Defendant County opposes the
motion arguing that Plaintiffs should have known the facts giving rise to the
claims earlier and referenced abuse linked to domestic violence and
claimed physical abuse in their governmental claims. However, Defendants do not point to anything specific and
Plaintiffs argue in reply that Hernandez did not have access to Plaintiffs
until 2022, and E.C. did not make disclosures until February/March 2023.
Further, the juvenile case materials available to Plaintiffs did not include
sufficient facts for these claims. Lastly, it was not until the deposition of
social worker Lizbeth Hernandez Aviles in February 2023 that an actionable
claim for breach of mandatory duty became known because it was learned for the
first that County had a reasonable suspicion of the abuse and neglect and yet
did not report suspicions which is required by law.
Defendant County also opposes
the motion based on the claims being time barred. As to the time barred
argument, the Court declines to consider the validity of the proposed amended
pleading in ruling on this motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or
motion to strike are premature.
The Court notes that there is a
pending demurrer with motion to strike set for May 10, 2023 and a trial setting
conference for the same date. Accordingly, the Court does not find prejudice
from the amendment.
In light of the liberal policy
allowing amendment, the motion is granted, , but not until the period
of May 11, 2023, and May 31, 2023.