Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV06652, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06652    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 74

Keith Fox, et al. v. Equity Residential Properties, LLC, et al.

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an apartment fire.

            On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff Joyce Eisman (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Equity Residential Management, LLC and Equity Residential Services, LLC (Defendants).

            On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

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 

            As a preliminary matter, the court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the applicable Rules of Court. Defendants argue in opposition that Plaintiff’s delay in bringing this motion is unreasonable. But absent prejudice, delay alone is not ground for denial of a motion for leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.3d 558, 564-565.) Moreover, courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Defendant also contends that prejudice will result because the amended pleading will jeopardize the trial date. But when this motion was originally set to be heard on November 8, 2023 – which the parties continued by stipulation to today, January 10, 2024 – trial was over five months away. In addition, Defendant argues the proposed amendment has no merit. But the court will address the amendment’s sufficiency in a demurrer or motion to strike.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.