Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Goo v. Rullo, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Yang Mo Goo’s unopposed motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576; CRC 3.1324.)

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.  Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1). 

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(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.  CRC 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.  CRC 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.  It is a “rare case” in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.  Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 155, 158 (citation omitted).

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.  Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown.  This may happen where a proposed amendment opens up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation as to why the major change in point of attack had not been made long before trial.  Estate of Murphy v. Gulf Ins. Co. (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 304, 311.  

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.

Here, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the operative complaint to correct the spelling of named defendant.  Plaintiff contends that the original Complaint named defendant Maria Rullo.  Then, someone suggested that the correct name was actually Mario Rullo and Plaintiff filed a FAC. The next day, Plaintiff discovered that the correct name was indeed, Maria Rullo.

Plaintiff has generally complied with the motion and declaration requirements pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a) and (b).  Furthermore, it does not appear that Defendant has been served with the summons and complaint, as no proof of service is on file, and Defendant has yet to appear in this matter.  Thus, no prejudice has been shown by any party.

Plaintiff Yang Mo Goo to file a Second Amended Complaint within 10 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.