Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: October 22, 2024

Case Name: Madjarian et al v. Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association et al.

Case No.: 24STCV03503

Motion: Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gaspar Giovanni Madjarian, Jasmine Hasmig Madjarian, Sosi

Madjarian, Jasmine Madjarian, Anthony Madjarian and Patrick Madjarian

Responding Party: N/A

Tentative Ruling:

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint.

Background

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs Gaspar Giovanni Madjarian, Jasmine Hasmig Madjarian, Sosi Madjarian, Jasmine Madjarian, Anthony Madjarian and Patrick Madjarian (collectively “Plaintiffs’) filed this action against Defendants Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association, Forest Lawn Mortuary, and Does 1 to 100 (collectively “Defendants”). This action involves Defendants’ alleged mishandling of Plaintiffs’ deceased family member and breach of contract for funeral services.

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint, which alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Negligence, and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this unopposed Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The 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 (internal citations omitted).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Ibid.) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).)

Discussion

The Courts finds all requirements have been met for a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs have attached a declaration stating that this amendment is the result of weeks of meeting and conferring with Defendants about the deficiencies of the First Amended Complaint. (Kosoyan Decl., ¶ 7.) While Plaintiffs do not anticipate that the SAC will address all of Defendants’ concerns, Plaintiffs believe the SAC will narrow the issues and avoid unnecessary motion practice. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs have attached a copy of the Second Amended Complaint in redline format, showing all proposed changes. (Kosoyan Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiffs have also attached a copy of the Second Amended Complaint in the form to be filed. (Kosoyan Decl., Exh. 1.) The only amendment appears to be an added paragraph in the first cause of action for breach of contract, stating that Plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries of the contract with Defendants and that they are entitled to enforce it under Civil Code § 1559. (SAC, ¶ 25.) Thus, no explanation is necessary as to when proposed factual allegations were discovered.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint.