Leeann Morgan v. City of Santa Barbara, et al

Case Number

24CV00706

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 11/25/2025 - 15:08

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff Leeann Morgan’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Leeann Morgan: Self Represented

For Defendant City of Santa Barbara: Tom R. Shapiro, Delaney Satz

                     

RULING

For the reasons set forth below, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint is continued to December 17, 2025. Plaintiff shall file and serve an amended notice of motion that specifically identifies the proposed modifications, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, as well as a declaration that contains as an attachment the corrected proposed fourth amended complaint, no later than December 3, 2025. Defendant shall file and serve an opposition, if any, to the proposed fourth amended complaint, no later than December 10, 2025.

Background

This action commenced on December 16, 2024, by the filing of the original complaint by Plaintiff Leeann Morgan (Morgan) against City of Santa Barbara (City), Dynamite Pickleball, LLC (Dynamite), and David Wilcox (Wilcox) for premises liability.

On March 18, 2024, Morgan filed her first amended complaint for premises liability, removing Wilcox as a Defendant.

On August 22, 2024, Morgan filed her second amended complaint for premises liability, adding Wilcox back in as a Defendant.

On December 16, 2024, Morgan filed her operative third amended complaint (TAC) for premises liability against City, Dynamite, and Wilcox. As alleged in the TAC:

Dynamite and Wilcox partnered with City to lease, rent, or use the Municipal Tennis and Pickleball Center’s Stadium (the “Stadium”) as the location for their Pickleball clinic. The partnership included the installation of four sets of pickleball Court lines on the tennis teaching Court. At some time prior to installing the lines, the Stadium structure had been condemned by the City, but private tennis instruction was still allowed on the Court pending plans by the City to eventually re-model or re-build the Court and its surrounding structure.

Approximately late 2021 and early 2022, four sets of black pickleball lines for four pickleball Courts were painted onto the tennis teaching Court that had been solely designated for tennis instruction. Various problems and hazards concerning the lines, that were experienced by tennis students, were relayed to the principal tennis instructor.

As a result of the hazardous playing surface created by the installation of the lines over the tennis Court’s surface, Morgan fell during tennis instruction and sustained injuries.

On January 14, 2025, City answered the TAC with a general denial and 21 affirmative defenses.

On February 25, 2025, Morgan dismissed Dynamite and Wilcox.

On October 22, 2025, Morgan filed the present amended motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint (4AC), adding as a Defendant Trueline Construction and Surfacing, Inc. (Trueline), which Morgan alleges in the vendor contracted by City in September 2021 to paint the black lines on the tennis stadium Court. The 4AC also seeks to add a cause of action for strict product liability and to add additional allegations.

City opposes the motion.

Analysis

Pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 473(a)(1), the Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. The Court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)

“Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted [citation], provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. [Citation.]” (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

“A long unexcused delay may be the basis for denying permission to amend pleadings [citations], especially where the proposed amendment interjects a new issue [citations], which may require further investigation or discovery procedures [Citations.]” (Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126, 139.)

Motion Requirements

“(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

“(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

“(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

“(b) Supporting declaration

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

“(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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

“(c) Form of amendment

The Court may deem a motion to file an amendment to a pleading to be a motion to file an amended pleading and require the filing of the entire previous pleading with the approved amendments incorporated into it.

“(d) Requirements for amendment to a pleading

An amendment to a pleading must not be made by alterations on the face of a pleading except by permission of the Court. All alterations must be initialed by the Court or the clerk.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)

The motion does include a copy of the proposed amended complaint as required.

The motion does not state what allegations are to be deleted or added by page, paragraph, and line number. Morgan’s argument that the proposed 4AC itself shows the proposed changes, and that that is sufficient to comply with the requirements, is an incorrect statement of the law. Morgan is required, in the notice and motion itself, to specifically set forth the proposed changes. However, Morgan’s proposed 4AC is not complicated and it is not difficult to determine what changes are proposed. Morgan seeks to add Trueline as a Defendant, seeks to delete Dynamite and Wilcox (who have, as noted above, already been dismissed), seeks to add a cause of action against Trueline for strict products liability, and seeks to amend the background facts and allegations. In order to remedy Morgan’s failure to specifically identify the proposed modifications, Morgan will be ordered to file and serve an amended notice that strictly complies with the requirement that she specifically identify any proposed changes by page, paragraph, and line number.

Morgan’s supporting declaration adequately states the effect of the amendments as adding Trueline, adding a cause of action for products liability as to Trueline only, and deleting Dynamite and Wilcox. Morgan declares that the 4AC is necessary and proper because Trueline is City’s original September 20, 2021, vendor, materials formulator, and installer for the pickleball line project that installed the painted lines onto the tennis Court, and that strict products liability attaches to Trueline because the paint for the lines had inadequate traction due to inadequate ingredients. Morgan declares that the facts giving rise to the proposed amendments were realized “a few months after” the Court granted her a six month continuance on April 30, 2025, and setting a new trial date for February 11, 2026, due to Morgan sustaining head and body injuries from an auto accident. Morgan declares that she did not seek leave to amend earlier due to sustaining a traumatic brain injury on January 13, 2025, which is still causing her to operate at a substantive deficit and causes her to experience persistent cognitive and physical symptoms.

While the Court understands City’s argument, that the documents referencing Trueline were produced to Morgan in January 2025, the Court accepts Morgan’s declaration as containing a valid excuse for not filing the motion at an earlier date.

“ ‘The rule is well established that great liberality will be used in allowing amendments and where an amendment provides’ ” ‘ “merely the addition of matters essential to make the original cause of action complete’ ” ‘ “the amendment should certainly be allowed by the Court. (Citation.) Such an amendment effects no change in the nature of the case, and can therefore cause no surprise or prejudice to the adverse party. (Citations.)’ ” (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 565.)

The Court is inclined to grant Morgan’s motion and allow her to file and serve a 4AC, adding Trueline as a Defendant and asserting the cause of action for strict products liability against Trueline only. However, City has pointed out several issues with the proposed 4AC. Those issues include:

“Plaintiff only checked a cause of action for premises liability on her Amended Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, however, she attached causes of action forms for premises liability and products liability. On the premises liability attachment, Plaintiff lists causes of action for negligence, failure to warn, dangerous condition of public property, and products liability. It is well-established black letter law that the City’s tort liability is strictly statutory and that it may not be sued for general negligence.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 9-15.) Morgan acknowledges that City’s argument is valid and states that if the motion is granted, she will make City’s suggested corrections. (Reply, p. 12, ll. 18-22.)

“Under failure to warn, Plaintiff lists “ ‘City of Santa Barbara Municipal Tennis and Pickleball Center’ ” as a Defendant. However, Plaintiff did not state in her Amended Motion that she was seeking to add this alleged entity as a Defendant. While this is the name of the City’s tennis and pickleball center, it is not a separate legal entity from the City that may be sued.” (Opp., p. 4, ll. 16-20.) Morgan acknowledges that City’s argument is valid and states that if the motion is granted, she will make City’s suggested corrections. (Reply, p. 13, ll. 19-22.)

“On Plaintiff’s products liability cause of action, she lists both Trueline and the City as Defendants (see para. Prod. L-5 & Prod. L-7), despite stating she was only asserting a products liability cause of action against Trueline. It is entirely unclear what causes of action Plaintiff is alleging, and against who.” (Opp. p. 4, ll. 21-24.) Morgan acknowledges that City’s argument is valid and states that if the motion is granted, she will make City’s suggested corrections. (Reply, p. 14, ll. 5-7.)

In addition to the above-mentioned changes, Morgan appears to suggest the addition of other attachments to set forth other allegations and clarify her position with respect to City and Trueline. As such, the attached proposed amendment is not an accurate reflection of what Morgan seeks to file as her 4AC. City, and the Court, require the opportunity to evaluate the proposed amended 4AC in complete and final form. The 4AC is to comply with the stated goal of adding a strict products liability cause of action solely against Trueline, and not assert any additional causes of action against City. Morgan will be ordered to make the corrections to the 4AC and to file and serve it, allowing City to raise any appropriate objections and argument in response.