Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV17129, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17129    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff the Labor Commissioner of the State of California filed this action against various defendants for foreclosure of mechanics’ liens, unpaid wages and related penalties, rest break premiums, and itemized wage statement penalties on behalf of ten construction day laborers.

            On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 473(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

            Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to rectify certain drafting errors: (i) correct the name of a defendant; (ii) remove the allegation that the mechanics’ liens were recorded within 90 days after the laborers finished their work; and (iii) reduce liability on the sixth cause of action to two defendants rather than all defendants. (Hung Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.)

            These changes are necessary to rectify drafting errors. There is no fundamental change to the nature of the complaint, and no prejudice to Defendants. Thus, the Court finds good cause for the amendment.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint is GRANTED.