Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV05197, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05197    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 14

Paramount Plaza vs. Jae Young Kim

Case Background

Unlawful detainer.

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Jae Young Kim (“Kim”) and DOES 1-10.

On March 20, 2023, Defendant Kim filed his Answer.

            No trial date has yet been set.

Instant Motion

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order permitting it to file a First Amended Complaint changing the complaint to one for breach of contract.

Governing Standard

            “[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. [Citations]. 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.4^th 1422, 1428. It is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend based on delay alone; the amendment must affirmatively prejudice the opposing side. Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565. However, prejudice exists where the delay is unwarranted and the result will be additional cost for trial preparation, witness depositions, and other discovery. See Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5^th 675, 689 (citing Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 168, 175); P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4^th 1332, 1345 (citing Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4^th 732, 746).

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file the First Amended Complaint within 7 days.

The motion is unopposed. This amounts to a concession by Defendant Kim that the motion has merit. See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4^th 1, 20.