Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV20736, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20736    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendant London Carter

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Plaintiff David Jones 

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer

The court considered the moving papers. Plaintiff David Jones did not file an opposition.

BACKGROUND 

            On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff David Jones (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant London Carter (Defendant). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for defamation.

            Without the aid of counsel, Defendant handwrote his answer and filed it on July 12, 2022. The original answers states, “These false statements are not truth, I did not say these words to Mr. David Jones.” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. B.)

            On October 12, 2022, Defendant engaged pro bono counsel.

            On November 29, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for leave to amend his original answer. (Motion.) Defendant’s proposed amended answer includes a general denial of Plaintiff’s allegations and affirmative defenses. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. A.)

            On March 23, 2023, Defendant filed notice of non-receipt of Plaintiff’s opposition.

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 procedural matter, the court notes that Defendant’s motion does not specify what affirmative defenses he proposes to add in his amended answer. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

            Otherwise, the court finds that Defendant has complied with the procedural requirements associated with the motion. The court also finds that there will be no prejudice to Plaintiff as a result of the amended answer, especially since Plaintiff has not filed an opposition citing any potential prejudice.

CONCLUSION 

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

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 DATED:  ¿March 30, 2023 

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court