Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 20CHCV00340, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 20CHCV00340    Hearing Date: May 22, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

Motion filed: 4/8/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Allied Servicing Corporation; Sheila White; and Melissa Bolling (the “Moving Defendants” or “Allied Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Henry W. Hardison (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting the Moving Defendants leave to file their First Amended Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action. Subsequently, on October 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Second Chance Home Loans, LLC; Allied Servicing Corporation; Homecoming Property, LLC; Stewardship Properties, LLC; Sandor Lau; William Syrios; Sheila White; and Melissa Bolling (collectively, “Defendants”); and Does 1 through 200, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Money Had and Received; (2) Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; (4) Declaratory Relief; (5) Violation of California Fair Debt Collection Act (Civil Code § 1788.30); (6) Violation of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USCA § 1692k); (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Unjust Enrichment; (10) Cancellation of Instrument; (11) Unfair Competition – Business & Profession Code § 17200; and (12) Tort of Another. Subsequently, on March 11, 2021, Defendants filed their joint Answer to the SAC.

On November 24, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on September 1, 2021. (2021/11/24 Minute Order.)

On July 29, 2022, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on April 22, 2022. (2022/07/29 Minute Order.)

            On August 22, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to continue trial and all related dates and deadlines, setting the current trial date as August 19, 2024.

            On February 9, 2024, the Moving Defendants filed substitutions of attorney.

            Following this, on April 8, 2024, the Moving Defendants filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer (the “Motion”).

            On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Non-opposition to the Motion.

            No replying papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides in pertinent part, “The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Trial courts have discretion to permit amendments, which should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments to promote the judicial policy to resolve all disputed matters in one lawsuit. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located.  California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

A.    Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer

The Moving Defendants assert that the purpose of the proposed First Amended Answer (“FAA”) is to update the caption page with new counsel of record information, add eight affirmative defenses, and add one line to the prayer for relief. (Reynolds Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.) Additionally, the counsel attests that these proposed affirmative defenses were formulated shortly after he was substituted in as the Moving Defendants’ attorney of record and reviewed the case documents. (Id. ¶ 7.) The Motion is accompanied by a copy of the proposed FAA as well as a redlined copy of the Moving Defendants’ original Answer to the SAC, indicating the proposed changes. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Consequently, the Court finds that the Moving Defendants have complied with the requirements mandated by the California Rules of Court rule 3.1324.

Furthermore, the Motion states that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff as the FAA relates to the same general set of facts pleaded in the SAC, and Plaintiff still has adequate time to conduct written discovery on the proposed affirmative defenses before the discovery cut-off date on July 18, 2024. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff does not contest or contradict the Motion.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the FAA will not cause the type of prejudice that warrants the denial of the Motion.

Based on the foregoing, the unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer is GRANTED. The Court further ordered the Moving Defendants to serve and file their First Amended Answer within five days of this ruling.

CONCLUSION

The Moving Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer is GRANTED.

The Moving Defendants are ordered to serve and file their First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint within five days of this ruling.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice.