Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV01110, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01110    Hearing Date: November 5, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 6/18/24                                                                                     Jury Trial: 8/25/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Terry Colson, fka Terry Woodmansee (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mentor Paredes (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff to separately file her proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a contract action in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “is the promisor of the Promissory Note entered into with Plaintiff’s [late] mother.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff alleges that “on February 23, 2011, Defendant signed a Promissory Note related to property that Rita Woodmansee sold to Defendant. … Pursuant to the Promissory Note, Defendant acknowledged a debt of $80,000 and agreed to provide monthly payments of $500.00 per month.” (Id. at ¶¶ 7–8.) Upon her mother’s death, the Promissory Note was allegedly passed to Plaintiff as the promisee. (Id. at ¶ 9.) “Despite being aware that Plaintiff was Rita’s daughter and had now become the Promisee of the Promissory Note, Defendant has stopped and refused to make payments to Plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶ 10.)

On 4/17/23, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Unjust Enrichment. On 6/6/23, Defendant filed his answer.

On 6/18/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a FAC. On 10/22/24, Defendant filed his opposition. On 10/29/24, Plaintiff filed her reply.

//

//

//

ANALYSIS

“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) “In a case where such an amendment can be made in furtherance of justice without jeopardizing the rights of an adverse party, it should be allowed. This, of course, assumes that neither the cause of action nor the issues involved therein will be radically changed by the proposed amendment.” (Thomasian v. Superior Court (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 322, 335–336.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a FAC because “the facts in the original complaint are inaccurate. The facts discuss the sale of a property, however the matter has to do with the Defendant not paying rent as a tenant and subsequently a contract was entered into for the payment of unpaid rent during Defendant’s tenancy.” (Decl. of Patricia Rodriguez ¶ 9.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to amend her complaint, and that granting the instant motion would cause prejudice to Defendant. Defendant also asserts that the newly discovered facts do not relate back to the original complaint, and that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for the instant motion as set forth under rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court.

Plaintiff argues in reply that “the proposed amendment will not prevent Defendant from responding effectively, nor does it substantially alter the case’s nature or scope. Although the amendment includes a factual clarification—from unpaid rent under a lease agreement to alleged obligations arising from a purchase—this change does not introduce new theories of liability or impose additional obligations upon Defendant. Instead, it serves only to clarify the true context of the claim.” (Pl.’s Reply 4:22–26.) “The amendment simply reflects the transition from a purchase agreement to a lease agreement without expanding or introducing unforeseen legal obligations. Furthermore no additional causes of actions have been added nor has any other additional fact been added.” (Id. at 5:6–8.) Plaintiff further clarifies that “the original complaint and the proposed amendment share a common factual nucleus regarding the events surrounding the agreement Defendant entered into with Plaintiff’s mother. Plaintiff's intention is to clarify the nature of the claims rather than to fundamentally alter them. The shift from a purchase agreement to a lease agreement does not introduce new facts or claims that would be subject to a separate limitations period; it merely recharacterizes the transaction without prejudicing the Defendant.” (Id. at 5:19–24.)

Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court requires a party moving for leave to amend to: “(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.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(a).) “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.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)

In reply, Plaintiff attaches her attorney’s supplemental declaration complying with the requirements set forth under rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court, describing the proposed amendments to her complaint and attesting that “these changes were made to clarify the factual basis of Plaintiff’s claims, accurately represent the contractual arrangement between the parties, and ensure consistency in the language and remedies sought in this action.” (Supp. Decl. of Patricia Rodriguez ¶¶ 3–10.)

The Court finds that Defendant will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments, and that the claims relate back to those made in the original complaint. Based on the foregoing, and the court’s liberal policy on granting leave to amend, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint with the proposed changes.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Plaintiff to separately file her proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.