Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00244, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00244    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Charlotte Martin

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Antoine Becks

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Verified Answer

The court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion. No reply was filed.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Antoine Becks (“Becks”) filed this action to partition real property on April 28, 2022, against Defendant Charlotte Martin (“Martin”). The property at issue is located at 127 North Canyon Blvd., Monrovia, California 91016. Becks alleges that he and Martin each own an undivided interest in the property as joint tenants.

            On June 2, 2022, Martin filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Becks, alleging fraud, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On June 23, 2022, Martin filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”), which adds causes of action for wrongful acquisition of deed by fraud and undue influence and quiet title.

Martin now moves for leave to file an amended answer to conform to allegations made in the first amended cross-complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 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 procedural matter, the court notes that Becks filed an untimely opposition, and no reply has yet been filed. Nevertheless, the court will consider Becks’s opposition.

The court finds that Martin has complied with the procedural requirements associated with the motion. The court also finds that there will be no prejudice as a result of the amendment. Although Becks argues that the proposed amended answer improperly claims affirmative relief, the court finds that the error is not prejudicial because it is undisputed that Martin has, in fact, filed a cross-complaint seeking affirmative relief.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Martin’s motion to amend the answer. The court orders Martin to file and serve the amended answer within 3 days of the date of this order.  

Martin is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 1, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court