Mendoza v.City of San Jose

Background

Cristina Mendoza moved for permission to file a first amended complaint. She sought to add Skyport Plaza Owner’s Association and Hudson Pacific Properties L.P. as defendants; clarify the address and parcel number of the property where she alleged she was injured; seek damages and injunctive relief against the two new defendants; assert that unspecified defendants had a duty to inspect and maintain the area; state that she intended to return to the property; remove references to dismissed defendants; and remove claims and allegations concerning municipal liability.

Arguments

The Hudson Defendants—Hudson Skyport Plaza, LLC; Hudson Skyport Plaza Land, LLC; and Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.—argued that amendment would prejudice them because the proposed complaint sought to revive injunctive-relief claims addressed in a consent decree. They also argued that adding defendants would cause undue delay, including by affecting mediation and Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s anticipated participation in the litigation.

Mendoza stated that she would not bring injunctive-relief claims against the Hudson Defendants. The court noted that the two new defendants could raise the consent-decree issue through a motion at the appropriate time.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that requests for permission to amend should generally be allowed very freely. It found that Mendoza had a valid reason for seeking amendment: she had discovered two defendants who might be responsible for her injury and wanted to avoid leaving potentially responsible parties absent from the trial.

The court was not persuaded that amendment would prejudice the Hudson Defendants. It also rejected the delay arguments, reasoning that the new defendants could likely become familiar with the litigation quickly and that deadlines might change because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that the Hudson Defendants had not provided factual support showing how amendment would negatively affect Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s future participation.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Mendoza’s motion to file a first amended complaint. It ordered Mendoza to file the amended complaint within fourteen days of the April 17, 2020 order. The opinion did not decide the underlying liability or the merits of the claims in the proposed amended complaint.