Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV18802, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 23STCV18802    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiff Rebecca Rowe (Rowe) sued Defendants Workman Design and Construction Pools and Landscapes, Inc., Anthony Workman, Navigators Insurance Company, and Does 1 through 75 pursuant to an August 8, 2023 Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Money Had and Received; (3) Intentional Misrepresentation; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Claim on Contractors License Bond; (6) Violations of Business & Professions Code § 7160; (7) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (8) Unfair Business Practices; (9) Equitable Indemnity; (10) Statutory Indemnity; (11) Elder Abuse.

On September 19, 2023, Workman Design and Construction Pools and Landscapes, Inc., and Anthony Workman (collectively Workman) filed a Cross-Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Foreclosure of Mechanics Lien; (2) Breach of Written Contract; (3) Breach of Oral Contract; (4) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract; (5) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (6) Common Count: Open Book; (7) Common Count: Services Rendered; (8) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and (9) Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations.

The claims arise from construction of an additional dwelling unit that Rowe contracted Workman to build on her property.

B. Motion Before the Court

On August 23, 2024, Workman filed the instant motion for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On September 5, 2024, Rowe opposed the motion.

On September 11, 2024, Workman replied.

II. Motion

A. Evidentiary Objections

Rowe’s objections to the Declaration of Sara D. Fazio are OVERRULED.

B. 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.”

“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 (Kittredge Sports).) California courts will not ordinarily consider the validity of a proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave to amend given that any grounds for a demurrer or a motion to strike will be premature at that time. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 (California Casualty), citations omitted, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 403-406; see also Kittredge Sports, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048 [Where “the proposed legal theory [at issue] is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings’”], quoting California Casualty, supra, at p. 280.)

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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, subdivision (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.

C. Analysis

Here, Workman meets the procedural requirements for leave to amend.

Workman has filed a proposed First-Amended Cross-Complaint with ‘redline’ changes showing the changes from the Complaint, thus satisfying California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324 subdivision (a)(1)-(3). (Fazio Decl., Ex. A.)

Workman has also filed a declaration from counsel satisfying California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivisions (b)(1)-(4). (Fazio Decl., ¶¶ 4 [effect, necessary and proper], 5 [when facts discovered, why not brought earlier].)

In opposition, Rowe argues that the motion is untimely, and introducing a new cause of action at this stage of the litigation would be prejudicial. (Opp. p. 4.) She argues that Workman filed the Cross-Complaint over a year ago and now seeks to add a new cause of action with trial set for November 26, just over two months away. (Opp. p. 4.)

 Here Workman’s explanation for why the fraud cause of action was not brought earlier is admittedly vague, as Workman’s counsel only explains that “[w]hile reviewing the discovery” the “firm recognized an additional cause of action to be plead” the delay was due to “inadvertent neglect.” (Fazio Decl. ¶ 3.) However, Rowe has failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from allowing Workman to file the proposed First-Amended Cross-Complaint. Rowe argues that she will be prejudiced by the amendment because it introduces a new legal theory shortly before trial, potentially requiring additional discovery and preparation. However, Workman shows that the new fraud cause of action is based on the same factual allegations as those already pleaded. Moreover, Rowe has not provided any specific examples of how she would be prejudiced by the proposed amendment, particularly where the discovery cut off is still more than 30 days away.

Thus, Workman’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

III. Conclusion

Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.