Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01179814, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Henkels & McCoy, Inc.’s motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is granted. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Southern California Gas Company’s motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is granted.
The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) Additionally, any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 576.)
A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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 Court, rule 3.1324(b).)
California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) This liberality only applies so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.) If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)
The moving parties have complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Here, there is no asserted or apparent prejudice to the parties by the filing of the proposed first amended cross-complaints. No opposition to the motions was filed. It is in the furtherance of justice to allow the proposed amended cross-complaints.
No later than August 29, 2022, the moving parties shall each electronically file their amended cross-complaints. The moving parties shall serve the amended cross-complaints pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
The moving parties shall give notice of the rulings.