Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV19358, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19358    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 52

Cross-Complainants 8155 Heights, LLC and Shyon Keoppel’s Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint

Cross-Complainants 8155 Heights, LLC and Shyon Keoppel move for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint.

Courts have discretion to permit an amendment to any pleading “in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  “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.)  Courts exercise their discretion “liberally to permit amendment,” and “[t]he policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) 

A motion for leave to amend will normally be granted unless (1) the party seeking to amend has delayed bringing the proposed amendment; and (2) the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to an opposing party.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

Cross-defendants Iron Hammer Properties, LP, Mangum LP, and Eddie, Irene, Steven, and Carol Leisner, argue the proposed amendment is “wildly prejudicial.”  (Opp., p. 4.)  But they show no more than minimal prejudice.  They argue, “Amending so close to the discovery cut-off date and trial date can be said to be even later than the proverbial ‘eleventh hour.’ ”  (Ibid.)  Cross-defendants make only generic arguments.  They provide no specific explanation of how the delay prejudiced them.

            The motion is granted.  Cross-complainants are ordered to file the first amended cross-complaint forthwith.