Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV08389, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08389    Hearing Date: June 10, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 4, 2021, Plaintiffs ZEIN E. OBAGI, JR., an individual; and

OBAGI LAW GROUP, P.C., a California law corporation (“Obagi”) filed this action against Defendants BYRON SPENCER HOLLINS, an individual; HOLLINS & ASSOCIATES;

MICHAEL M. LEVIN, an individual.

On September 21, 2021, Obagi filed its first amended complaint.

On October 6, 2021, dismissed defendant Levin.

Plaintiff is an attorney who was sued by a former client in an underlying case (the “Dominguez Action”). Plaintiff was held liable for, among other things, failure to notify his former client Dominguez of receipt of settlement funds, failure to render accounts for client funds, failure to maintain client funds in trust, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff’s claim against the Hollins Defendants arises from the Hollins firm’s alleged failure to adequately represent Plaintiff in the Dominguez Action.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his complaint to accomplish the following: (1) allege more specific facts regarding the Hollins Defendants’ failure to adequately represent Plaintiff; (2) remove allegations concerning Levin; and (3) correct Plaintiffs’ true name (See Motion 2-3.)

            On May 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed their opposition on May 28, 2024.  Plaintiffs filed their reply on June 3, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in the furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.) In determining the extent of prejudice to the opposing party, the court must consider various factors, such as whether the amendment would delay trial or increase the discovery burden. (Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 306.)

A motion for leave to amend a complaint must be accompanied by a declaration that explains: (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 Ct., Rule 3.1324(b).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to add paragraphs to the complaint in support of Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against Defendants. 

            Defendants’ oppositions mainly center around the argument that Plaintiff has already been held liable in the underlying action and is merely attempting to shift blame onto others or raise defenses against the pending State Bar action. These arguments are not pertinent to the instant motion.

            Defendant’s opposition fails to show prejudice, which is the primary factor in denying leave to amend. (See Duchrow, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1377 [amendments are liberally granted absent prejudice to the opposing party].) As such, the the Court is disinclined to deny Plaintiff leave to amend. Defendants retain the opportunity to demur or move to strike after Plaintiff files an amended pleading.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.   Plaintiff shall file their second amended complaint within 5 days of this order.  Trial is continued to May 27, 2025, and Final Status Conference is continued to May 15, 2025.