Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV45950, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV45950 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Amber vs. Chiamulon,
et. al., Case No. 20STCV45950
Tentative Ruling re:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff Kristen Amber
(Plaintiff) moves for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The
motion is granted.
The court may, in its discretion
and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an
amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any
party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any
other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)
California courts are required to
permit liberal amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice between the
parties to an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 352.)
“Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)
Under California Rules of Court,
rule 3.1324:
(a) A
motion to amend a pleading before trial must:
(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.
Subdivision (b) of rule 3.1324
requires the motion be accompanied by a separate, supporting declaration,
specifying:
(1) the amendment’s effect;
(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.
Plaintiff has satisfied the
requirements of Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Plaintiff has attached a copy of
the proposed SAC, as well as a copy of the SAC indicating changes from the
prior complaint. (Hanken Decl., Ex. A, Ex. F.) The SAC adds factual
allegations, in particular to the first and third causes of action, and also
adds a tenth cause of action for extortion against all Defendants. (Hanken
Decl., Ex. F.) Counsel for Plaintiff states that he was ill when drafting the
First Amended Complaint and now seeks to correct errors and omissions in that
pleading. (Hanken Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff also found additional errors on her
review of the proposed complaint. (Hanken Decl. ¶ 7.)
Defendants 14400 West, LLC and
Chiamulon Family Properties, L.P. oppose the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff’s
proposed amendments go beyond the scope of the leave to amend granted by the
Court after sustaining the demurrer to the original Complaint, and that
Plaintiff has not shown mistake or excusable neglect.
The policy of
liberality in permitting amendment of pleadings “applies to amendments ‘at any
stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,’ absent prejudice to the
adverse party.” (Tung v. Chicago Title Company (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th
734, 747.) The opposing Defendants have not shown that they will suffer
prejudice as a result of the proposed amendments. The presence of mistake or
excusable neglect is not relevant here. While the opposing Defendants take
issue with Plaintiff’s newly proposed cause of action, “it is irrelevant that
new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments ‘relate to
the same general set of facts.’” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109
Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) The proposed tenth cause of action is premised on the
same facts previously alleged and so may properly be added. (Hanken Decl., Ex.
F, p. 29.)