Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Rinner v. Hoyt, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING 

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Vince Rinner’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to the City of Placentia Zoning Ordinance and Excerpts from the Second Amended Complaint.  All other requests for judicial notice are denied.

General Rule: Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge: ‘The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading....’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) However, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. . . . The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .’” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)  

Declaration: Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 (b) requires that “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.” 

Plaintiff complied with the requirements of CRC 3.1324.  

Prejudice:  Defendants failed to demonstrate that there would be prejudice if the amended pleading was permitted. The issues in the case remain essentially the same. “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown.” (P & D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.)  

“Although 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. . ., this policy should be applied only “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party....” . . . A different result is indicated “[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party” is shown.” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.” (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.) “[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment” . . . “Furthermore, “it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of facts.’” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)  

Finally, “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Moving party to give notice.