Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2021-00024244-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 13, 2023

07/14/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00024244-CU-BC-NC KOTOWSKI VS FARZAD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to Amend, 04/27/2023

Plaintiffs/Cross-Complainants/Cross-Defendants Steve Kotowski and Karen Douglas (collectively, 'Cross-Complainants')'s motion for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint (the 'FACC') is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 473 provides that '[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 473(a)(1).

Leave to amend is liberally allowed. See Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 1103, 1111. The court must apply this policy of great liberality 'at any stage of the proceedings,' absent prejudice to the adverse party. See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 761.

Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with 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. An unwarranted delay in presenting a proposed amendment, resulting in prejudice to the opposing party, is also a valid reason for denial. See Hirsa v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490.

The court construes Cross-Defendants' lack of opposition as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, the court finds that Cross-Complainants have met their burden of demonstrating good cause for leave to amend. Notably, no interested party has opposed the motion, which the court construes as a lack of prejudice that will result from granting the motion. Nor does the court find any such prejudice because the proposed amendments involve allegations and issues, including those concerning parking and garage use, that have been known to the parties through discovery and the Salehis' Cross-Complaint. Moreover, Cross-Complainants were not dilatory in seeking amendment because the issues related to parking rules, garage use rules, and the mode of enforcement of those rules arose and/or worsened and/or ripened into legal claims after Cross-Complainants filed their original Cross-Complaint. See Andrews Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the proposed amendments will result in a delay of trial, loss of critical evidence, increased preparation costs, or increased discovery burdens.

In light of the foregoing, the court grants Cross-Complainants' motion for leave to amend.

Cross-Complainants shall file and serve the FACC within ten (10) days of this hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, July 14, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of July 14, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968102 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  KOTOWSKI VS FARZAD [IMAGED]  37-2021-00024244-CU-BC-NC is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968102