NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is granted.

 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Bruce Lee and Dahee Lee (Plaintiffs) filed this action against Lemonade Insurance Company (Defendant), alleging Defendant unreasonably delayed and failed to properly investigate and pay valid insurance claims following a fire that damaged Plaintiffs’ apartment units.

The causes of action are: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Bad Faith; (3) Negligence; (4) Violation of California Insurance Code § 790.03; and (5) Unfair Business Practices Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

 

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Defendant 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 … 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, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action 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 Rules 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

Plaintiffs seek to amend the Complaint to reflect recent developments, including that Defendant has paid their claims. Plaintiffs also seek to remove the cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Defendant argues that, since it has subsequently paid the full policy limit, Plaintiff fails to state any cause of action. The Court declines to review the validity of the proposed amended pleading. See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760. (“the better course of action [is] to allow [the moving party] to amend the [pleading] and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is granted.

 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is granted. Plaintiff shall file the proposed First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Motion within 10 days of this ruling.