Rust

Rust v. Target Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 8, 20213:20-cv-02349California1,048 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

21 On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff Peggy Rust filed a Complaint against Defendants 22 Target Corporation (“Target”) and Does 1 through 10 in the Superior Court for the State 23 of California, County of San Diego. (Ex. A to Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1-3 at 3). Rust 24 brings one claim against Defendants for negligence under section 1714(a) of the California 25 Civil Code arising from a slip and fall at a Target store in Chula Vista. 26 On December 2, 2020, Defendant Target removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 27 1). On December 5, 2020, Rust filed a Motion to Remand to State Court. (ECF No. 6). On 28 February 16, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 18). On March 4, 2021, Rust filed a Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 22). Rust seeks leave to amend the Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages under section 3294 of the California Civil Code and to add factual allegations. Rust contends that the Court should allow amendment because “the Updated Joint Discovery Plan, signed by counsel for both parties, included Plaintiff’s stated intent to amend . . . to add new claims[,] . . .…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.