Gabriella Jones v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIELLA JONES, Case No. 2:26-cv-00062 CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., (ECF No. 19) ET AL., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gabriella Jones’ motion for leave to file a First 18 amended Complaint.1 (ECF No. 19). Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court submits the motion 19 upon the record and briefs on file and vacated the April 8, 2026 hearing. 20 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTs Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First 21 Amended Complaint. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 A. Factual Allegations2 24 On or about July 16, 2024, Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by Defendant Angela

25 1 This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all purposes, including the entry of judgment, pursuant to the consent of all parties. (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 18.) 26 2 These facts primarily derive from the complaint (ECF No. 1), which are construed in the light 27 most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of any conclusory factual 28 allegations or legal conclusions. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 LaCount. (ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) After the accident, Plaintiff alleges Defendant LaCount fled the 2 scene without rendering aid, in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21801(a). Id. at 10. 3 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a civil action in the Yolo County Superior Court alleging 4 negligence, negligence per se, negligent hiring, and negligent entrustment against Defendants 5 LaCount, Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Does 1-50. Id. at 1-7. 6 On October 13, 2025, Defendant LaCount entered a plea of no contest to a violation of 7 Vehicle Code Section 20001(a)(b)(1), hit and run with an injury, in Yolo County Superior Court. 8 (ECF No. 19-1 at 3.) Defendants removed this action to federal court on December 2, 2025, in the 9 Central District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On January 7, 2026, the parties stipulated to transfer 10 the case to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 11.) 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, a party may amend its pleading with the 13 Court’s leave, which it gives freely when justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, 14 leave cannot be given when amendment is futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 15 Plaintiff requests leave to amend to bring a claim for punitive damages against Defendant 16 Angela LaCount under California Civil Code Section 3294. (ECF No. 19.) In addition to actual 17 damages, punitive damages may be granted where there is “clear and convincing evidence that 18 the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice…” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. In 19 California, civil liability is incurred for a hit-and-run if “it is the proximate cause of further injury 20 or death.” Karl v. C.A. Reed Lumber Co., 275 Cal.App.2d 358, 361 (1969) (emphasis added); see 21 also, Brooks v. E.J. Willig Truck Transp. Co., 40 Cal. 2d 669, 679 (1953). 22 Defendants argue that leave to amend is futile because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim that 23 Defendant LaCount’s alleged hit-and-run caused further injury aside from the original accident. 24 (ECF No. 21 at 5-6.) Plaintiff’s proposed amended Complaint states Defendant LaCount failed to 25 render aid and because of her conduct, Plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury, and that 26 Defendant LaCount’s conduct “exposed Plaintiff to continued risk on an active interstate highway 27 and contributed to her emotional distress and trauma.” (ECF No. 19-3 at ¶¶ 42-43.) The 28 California Supreme Court provides an illustrative example of further injury sufficient to state a 1 | cause of action for civil liability under California’s hit-and-run statute: “[I]f a plaintiff is struck 2 || and is seriously bleeding following the accident, the fact that the defendant hits and runs could 3 || cause additional damage due to loss of blood, death, etc... if, however, the accident causes 4 | immediate soft tissue damage, no amount of aid would reduce or minimize the future damages...” 5 || O’Neal v. Orlov, 2017 WL 1349869, at *2 (Mar. 16, 2017). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has 6 || sufficiently pled further injuries by alleging emotional distress and trauma because of Defendant 7 || LaCount’s alleged hit-and-run. These are injuries, if proven by Plaintiff, that would have been 8 | avoided if not for Defendant LaCount allegedly leaving the scene of the accident. Therefore, 9 | Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 10 | Ill, CONCLUSION 1] In conclusion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is 13 GRANTED and is due 30 days from the filed date of this order. 14 | Dated: April 7, 2026 / a □□ / a Ly a

16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 || 7, jone26evo062 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28