NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend

 

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend is granted.

 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Jaime Blanco Maciel and Helen Ortiz-Blanco filed this action against numerous producers of artificial stone products, including Raphael Stone CA, Inc.

On May 31, 2024, Defendant California Quartz Inc. (Improperly sued as Raphael Stone CA, Inc.) (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer. Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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.”

“Leave to amend a pleading, including an answer, is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 488 (citations omitted). “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. See id. at p. 1048. The court, however, has discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.

Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(b), 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.

 

ANALYSIS

Here, Defendant seeks to make two changes to its Answer. First, it seeks to correct its name to Raphael Stone CA, Inc. Second, Defendant seeks to correct erroneously cited asbestos statutes of limitation with the appropriate statutes of limitation.

I. Timeliness

First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s Motion is not timely.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted, and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. Generally, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

A. Diligence

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s Motion is not timely because it was filed nearly ten months after Defendant’s Answer. Opp. at p. 2:22-25. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant doubled down on its mistakes by answering Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on September 18, 2024. Opp. at pp. 3:19-21, 4:16-18.

Defendant contends that the motion is timely because Defendant has only recently learned that Raphael Stone and California Quartz are separate and unrelated entities and promptly filed the instant motion. Reply at p. 2:7-9; Guan Decl. ¶ 5. Defendant further argues that it was only in preparation for filing its Motion that it discovered it had inadvertently cited asbestos-specific code sections in the Second Affirmative Defense to its Answer. Reply at p. 4:3-6; Guan Decl. ¶ 7. Moreover, Defendant argues that there have not been two answers between Raphael Stone and California-Quartz and that Plaintiffs have not amended their Complaint. Reply at pp. 2:18-19, 3:26-28. Indeed, the Court has no record of any September 18, 2024, answer, nor a First Amended Complaint.

B. Prejudice

Plaintiffs argue that the amendments will prejudice them because they “already served his written discovery upon Defendant nearly a year ago, in April, 2024,” and these amendments will require them to “go through another costly round of discovery.” Opp. at 4:3-6 p.m.

As with the purported First Amended Complaint and second answer, Defendant denies that any such written discovery was served. Reply at p. 2:24-27, 5:7-15. As Plaintiff does not provide any evidence supporting its claim and has already made inaccurate statements regarding documents in this case, the Court is inclined to believe that no written discovery was served and that no additional discovery costs will result from granting this motion. The Court has not even set a trial date in this case so ample time remains for Plaintiff to take appropriate discovery from Defendant. Therefore, the Court concludes that the timing of this motion does not prejudice Plaintiffs.

Because Defendant acted with diligence once the mistakes in its Answer were known, and the delay did not prejudice Plaintiffs, the Court finds the motion is timely.

II. Defendant’s Name

In his declaration, Defendant’s counsel states that he was informed and believed that Raphael Stone CA, Inc. and California-Quartz, Inc. were the same entity but has subsequently learned that they are distinct entities. Guan Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Defendant attaches each company’s articles of incorporation as Exhibit 1 and 2. Only Raphael Stone CA, Inc., and not California-Quartz, Inc., is named as a defendant in the Complaint.

Plaintiffs argue that if the motion is granted, California-Quartz Inc. will “disappear.” Opp. at p. 2. However, as Defendant correctly notes, Plaintiff remains free to amend its Complaint to name California-Quartz Inc. as a party in its own right if it has any basis to do so.

III. Statutes of Limitations

Defendant also seeks to amend the statutes of limitation in its Second Affirmative Defense, as it mistakenly listed asbestos-specific statutes in its Answer.

The Court sees no reason to deny this request, where Defendant has acted diligently upon notice of the error, particularly where “almost every other defendant pled each of the limitation code sections that Defendant now seeks to assert….” Opp. at p. 2. As discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been set, and Plaintiffs were evidently aware of this defense, allowing Defendant to amend its mistaken citation will not prejudice Plaintiffs.

The Court finds that allowing leave to amend is in the interest of justice. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend is granted.  Defendant shall file and serve the First Amended Answer attached as Exhibit 4 to the Guan declaration within 10 days of this order.