Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV14938, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14938    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff moves for an order partitioning real property and to quiet title against his deceased domestic partner’s interest.

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Earl Glen Harmon’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of the Second Amended Complaint, which shall be deemed served as of the date of this order.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint

Discussion

Plaintiff Earl Glenn Harmon moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to remove to causes of action from his complaint.

“Leave to amend is in general required to be liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of limitations concern. Leave to amend may be denied if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Citation omitted.)”  (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402.)  Where an additional theory of liability is proposed against an existing defendant, this is not prejudice which would justify the denial of leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. See also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.' [Citation.]" (Citation omitted.))

The proposed deletions are set forth at Pages 3:14 – 4:9 of the motion.

Moreover, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) states:

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

   (Cal. Rules of Court, 3.1324(b).)

            The Declaration of Margaret Reyes sufficiently complies with Rule 3.1324, in light of the fact that only deletions are proposed.

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of the Second Amended Complaint, which shall be deemed served as of the date of this order.