Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV42444, Date: 2024-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42444    Hearing Date: May 6, 2024    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Michelman & Robinson, LLP’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Cross-Complaint

Defendant/cross-complainant Michelman & Robinson, LLP moves for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint.  It seeks to add new causes of action for equitable indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief against a new cross-defendant: Carole Ann Crotty.

Courts have discretion to permit an amendment to any pleading “in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper.” (CCP § 473(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.) 

Plaintiff/cross-defendant Spitz Technologies Corporation argues the proposed first amended cross-complaint’s new causes of action fail as a matter of law.  In ruling on a motion for leave to amend, courts generally do not consider the amended pleading’s merits.  (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)  The court exercises its discretion not to consider the merits of the proposed amended cross-complaint.

 Plaintiff also argues Michelman & Robinson, LLP unreasonably delayed seeking leave to file a first amended cross-complaint.  Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend when (a) the moving party has delayed bringing the proposed amendment; and (b) 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.)  Assuming cross-complainant delayed bringing this proposed amendment, plaintiff shows insufficient prejudice to justify denying this motion.  The trial is set for November 2024.  There is ample time to conduct any additional discovery and to prepare for trial.

Disposition

Defendant/cross-complainant Michelman & Robinson, LLP’s motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint is granted.  Michelman & Robinson, LLP shall file the first amended cross-complaint (attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion) forthwith.