The Motion: Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall provide a copy of the proposed pleading entitled Amended Consolidated Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order, which will be deemed filed as of the date of receipt. 

Plaintiff Tyler Acker to give notice.

REASONING

The court may grant leave to?amend?the pleadings at any stage of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) A party may discover the need to?amend?after all pleadings are completed (the case is “at issue”) and new information requires a?change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. (See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380.) 

 

“The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [trial court’s denial of leave to amend was proper where those factors were present].) If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 [describing same].) 

 

A motion for leave to amend must:  

 

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; 

 

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and 

 

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. 

 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  

 

Further, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify the following: 

 

(1) The effect of the amendment; 

 

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; 

 

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and 

 

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).) 

 

Plaintiff has met the procedural requirements of a motion for leave to amend, as Plaintiff has included a copy of the proposed supplemental complaint, and has identified which paragraphs will be added in the proposed pleading. Plaintiff does not specifically state why he did not seek to amend earlier but claims that Plaintiff’s counsel promptly took action after identifying that the facts pleaded in the Consolidated Complaint supported additional legal theories that were erroneously omitted. It does not appear that there was unreasonable delay given that Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on August 5, 2021, and filed this instant motion for leave to amend on November 15, 2022. The Court notes that this is a case with many cross-complainants and defendants.

 

Plaintiff seeks to amend the Consolidated Complaint to include claims for Negligence-Wrongful Death, Negligence-Survival action against Defendants AMRATHBHAI G. PATEL dba

VENICE HOTEL, AMRATHBHAI G. PATEL, an individual, JAGUBHAI D. PATEL, an

individual, HARSHAD K. UKA, an individual, and DOES 1 to 100 and a claim for Strict Products Liability against PELONIS APPLIANCES, INC., MIDEA (U.S.A.) INC., MIDEA AMERICA CORP. and DOES 1 to 100. The Court finds that Defendants will not suffer prejudice since they will effectively be in the same position as if the Amended Consolidated Complaint had been filed on the date that Consolidated Complaint was filed because Plaintiff already brought these claims against defendants prior to the consolidated complaint. Additionally, the Court finds that the lack of a trial date set also supports a finding of no prejudice. The Court notes that this motion is unopposed.

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide a copy of the proposed pleading entitled Amended Consolidated Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order, which will be deemed filed as of the date of receipt.