Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV04366, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04366    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 74

Chung et al. v. Lee et al.

Plaintiff Jae Min Chung’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a quiet title action.

Plaintiff Jae Min Chung, as an individual and on behalf of 100 members of Los Angeles Korean 1st Presbyterian Church Corporation, against defendants Jae Yeun Lee, John S. Suh, Los Angeles Korea 1st Presbyterian Church, Bethlehem Church, Hwa Chong Kang, Han Jiun Shin, Solomon Ko and Jung Sook Ko (Defendants) alleges three causes of action: (1) Quiet Title, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (3) Declaratory Relief.

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the 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 3.1324(b).) 

DISCUSSION

             As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading.  The notice of the motions states what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added.   Plaintiff also includes a declaration stating which allegations were to be added and identified the changes by page, paragraph and line number and identifies when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered.  The declaration does not state the effect of the amendment or why the amendment is necessary and proper.  Nevertheless, the effect of the amendment is clear from the proposed amendments.

            Leave to amend shall be liberally granted.  (Howard, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1428.)  Defendant opposes granting leave on the grounds that the motion is prejudicial and futile.  First, Defendant makes no specific statement as to the prejudice that would be suffered if leave to amend were granted.  Second, the Court declines to consider the validity of the proposed amendments and chooses to allow amendment which permits the parties to test legal sufficiency by other appropriate means.  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.