Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 19STCV15918, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV15918, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15918 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: 14

#10

Case Background

This is an action for breach of contract and judicial foreclosure. Plaintiff alleges that he loaned Defendant $70,000 which Defendant failed to repay.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff James Johnson filed his Complaint against Defendant Raquelle Jackson.

On February 10, 2020, Defendant filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On November25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to file a First Amended Complaint.

On January 9, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., section 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., section 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (See Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the Complaint to add two paragraphs, which both allege that Defendant orally modified the terms of payment by requesting that the $70,000 loan at issue be paid to Cross-Defendant Cindy Martin. (Proposed First Amended Complaint, ¶¶13, 31.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel testifies that it has always been Plaintiff’s position that Defendant modified the contract to have the funds be paid to Martin. (Ibisi Decl., ¶3.) Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that Plaintiff included this fact in his discovery responses and in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Id.) An examination of the Court’s record shows that Plaintiff opposed Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in August 2022. Additionally, the Court heard motions to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses around the same time. Thus, Plaintiff has known of this fact since around August 2022.

In opposition, Defendant argues that she will be prejudiced if this motion is granted because she will be required to file a demurrer and completely revamp her trial preparation. However, given the history of this case, Plaintiff should have been aware of Plaintiff’s allegations about Martin since at least August 2022. Although Defendant may choose to file a demurrer if the motion is granted, trial would not be significantly delayed by the demurrer. Additionally, Defendant would not incur additional costs or lose critical evidence if the new facts are added because Defendant has had access to Plaintiff’s responses about Martin’s role in this dispute in 2022. Defendant argues that she would require time to revisit the discovery materials in this case. The Court finds that this does not constitute prejudice because the discovery was already available to Defendant as long ago as 2022.

Plaintiff failed to explain why he did not make a request for amendment sooner. Nevertheless, in the absence of prejudice to Defendant, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.