Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV02725, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02725    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2024 Plaintiff GOLDEN BANK, N.A., a federal association and a Texas corporation (“Golden Bank”) filed this action against Defendants 5482 CARLTON UPWELL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Upwell”), PROPHET WALKER, an individual (“Walker”); and JOSEPH GREEN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LEXINGTON LIVING TRUST (“Green”) in which Golden Bank alleged a number of Breach of Guaranty claims, and a Conversion claim. Defendants Walker and Upwell filed Answers to the complaint on April 15, 2024 and Defendant Green filed an Answer to the Complaint on April 25, 2024.

            On May 10, 2024, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney and substituted in its current counsel for the previous counsel which filed the Complaint.

Golden Bank now seeks leave to amend its complaint to correct inadvertently missed components of the prayer for relief, to change allegations of the Eighth Cause of Action to state a breach of a Carry Guaranty Agreement and not the Limited Guaranty agreement originally alleged; to include Mr. Green in the allegations in the Ninth Cause of Action; and to make additional minor changes.

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Defendants did not file an opposition. Plaintiff has filed a valid proof of service by First Class Mail to all Defendants.

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.) A party has the right to amend to correct a misstatement of facts when it appears the error was a result of a mistake or inadvertence. (Freidberg v. Freidberg (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 754, 761.) 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

            The moving party seeks to amend (a) allegations to allege previous counsel and new counsel; (b) to delete reference to the Limited Guaranty Agreement; (c) to include Defendant Green in one of the causes of action; (d) to add a Prayer for the Ninth Cause of Action; and (e) allegations to include both the Walker Guaranty and the Green Guaranty. Second, the moving party explains that the reason that the amendment is necessary and proper is because the original Complaint inadvertently alleged the wrong Guaranty agreement, omitted Defendant Green from some allegations in a cause of action, and the Prayer for damages was mistakenly corresponded to the wrong causes of action and in one cause, omitted entirely. Third, the moving party explains that the defects which are the bases of the amendment were discovered when new counsel substituted into the case. Finally, the moving party explains that the request for amendment was not made earlier because the new counsel was only recently substituted in. Thus, the moving party has met their burden in properly making the Motion for Leave to Amend.

            No defendants have filed any opposition to the instant motion claiming any undue prejudice against them. As stated above, all defendants were properly served with notice of the instant motion. Further, no discovery has yet occurred, and as such, the amendment would not be prejudicial to any defendant.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file their first amended complaint within 5 days of this order.