Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV45914, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45914    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: 74

Community Attire, Inc. v. Urban Fitz, Inc., et al.

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff Community Attire, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Urban Fitz, Inc. and David Yadidsion (Defendants). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of non-infringement, intentional misrepresentation, and indemnity.

            On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for theft arising from the same underlying transaction as the existing causes of action.

            Trial is set for November 27, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD           

Under 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) 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 3.134(b).)

DISCUSSION 

            In support of its motion for leave to amend the operative complaint, Plaintiff has substantially complied with California Rules of the Court. But Defendants argue that the court should deny the motion because of Plaintiff’s delay in bringing it. As Plaintiff notes, though, delay alone is not a sufficient basis for denying the motion to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) Rather, Defendants must also demonstrate that the amendment would prejudice them. (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. supra, 172 Cal.App.2d at p. 530.) To that end, Defendants claim the proposed amendment would result in a delay of trial. Trial is over two months away, though. Defendants also claim they would have to re-depose Plaintiff. But Defendants have not persuaded the court that this additional cost would be prejudicial. Given the strong policy favoring the amendment of pleadings, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. (Howard v. County of San Diego, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 1428.)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the operative complaint.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.