Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 20TRCV00236, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00236    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 7, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff South Bay Credit Union

Responding Party:                  Defendants CITIBANK, N.A. and BRP US Inc.

Motion to Continue Trial

            The court considered the moving and opposing papers.

RULING

            The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2020, plaintiff filed this action. The operative first amended complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of agreement, (2) conversion, (3) deceptive business practices, and (4) conversion.

Trial is set for January 25, 2023.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) states: “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.” 

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to CRC 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.  CRC 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. 

 DISCUSSION

            Defendants’ evidentiary objection number 1 is SUSTAINED. The remaining evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as immaterial. The Declaration of A. Lysa Simon is not based on personal knowledge and is thus insufficient. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to comply with CRC 3.1324.

            The motion is DENIED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.