Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00096, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00096    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         January 12, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Plaintiff Roosk Group, Inc.

Responding Party:                  None

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

            The court considered the moving papers.   No opposition was filed.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff Roosk Group, Inc. is ordered to file its SAC within five days.

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2022, plaintiffs TelcoLynx, LLC and The Roosk Group Inc. filed a complaint against Jamie McDaniel, Friendly Llama, Inc, Diane Zane, and Zane Consulting, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary duties, (4) fraud, (5) rescission of contract, and (6) unjust enrichment.

On June 28, 2022, plaintiffs filed a FAC.

On August 12, 2022, the court granted defendant Friendly Llama’s motion to disqualify counsel, Callagy Law, P.C. as counsel for plaintiff TelcoLynx.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “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.”

 “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (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, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), 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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are:  (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  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.  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.  Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 486-488.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff Roosk Group, Inc. requests leave to file a second amended complaint to clarify that all claims are being brought either directly by Roosk Group or derivatively by Roosk Group on behalf of TelcoLynx, LLC, which will be listed as a nominal party, and to clarify that Callagy Law does not represent or purport to represent TelcoLynx directly.

            Plaintiff contends that the amendments will address the issues raised by defendants and addressed by the court in connection with defendants’ previously granted motion to disqualify.  Plaintiff argues that permitting amendment will not prejudice defendants nor delay the proceedings. 

There is no opposition.

The court finds that plaintiff has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324.  In light of the liberal policy in allowing amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Roosk Group is ordered to give notice of this ruling.