Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2015-00033538-CU-CD-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024
04/19/2024 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Construction Defect Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2015-00033538-CU-CD-CTL CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant Taylor Morrison of California, LLC's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Defendant Santaluz, LLC's request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs' reply request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
The court then rules as follows. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED. CCP § 473(a).
As to the procedural issue Taylor Morrison raises, the court finds Plaintiffs' moving papers were timely served. CCP § 1010.6(a)(4).
On the merits the court begins with the general principle that courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, absent prejudice to the adverse party. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. If the motion is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party 'it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error, but an abuse of discretion.' Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. See also, General Credit Corp.
v. Pichel (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 844; Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960.
Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence or added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.
The court finds opposing parties, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, Defendant Santaluz, LLC, Cross-Defendant Glenn A. Rick Engineering and Development Co. and Cross-Defendant Atkins North America, Inc. fail to demonstrate prejudice sufficient to warrant denial of leave to amend. The Declaration of C. Brant Noziska [ROA 796], which incorporates and attaches the Declaration of C. Brant Noziska [ROA 729], and attaches a 'redline' version of Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.
Plaintiff adequately explains the reasons why this motion was not brought at an earlier time. Opposing parties argue prejudice as a result of the proposed amended complaint. However, the allegations and cause of action Plaintiffs seek to add arise out of the same underlying facts as those alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 7, 2022. Plaintiffs submit evidence that Plaintiffs provided opposing parties with a copy of Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint on January 18, 2024. Also, there is no trial date currently set in this matter and no discovery cut-off date. Thus, opposing parties will have ample time to raise any pleading challenges, conduct discovery and bring any dispositive motions Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3100649 7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE] 37-2015-00033538-CU-CD-CTL as to the proposed amended complaint. None of the authorities opposing parties rely on preclude allowing leave to amend in such circumstances. Although opposing parties raise arguments of unavailable witnesses and faded memories, the only evidence before the court is that one witness, a former employee of Taylor Morrison, is unable to testify because of medical issues. The court finds such evidence insufficient to establish the level of prejudice necessary to warrant denial of leave to amend.
Opposing parties also raise merits-based arguments including those as to the specificity required in pleading fraud causes of action and the role of the City of San Diego in approving the design of the Reservoir. However, on motion to amend the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is deficient as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, overruled on other grounds in Kransco v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23
Considering these circumstances the court finds leave to amend is appropriate. Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion in favor of allowing leave to amend.
The court orders Plaintiffs to file and serve their Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of this ruling.
If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.
Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3100649 7