Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: The Estate of Frances Marsh v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Date: 2022-11-23 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion for Leave to Amend

Plaintiff the Estate of Frances Marsh moves for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (“FNF”) as a defendant to the second cause of action for insurance bad faith and to add additional allegations regarding FNF.  For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

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.) Thus, leave to amend to more clearly state a plaintiff’s theories of liability should be liberally allowed. (Rainer v. Buena Community Memorial Hospital (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 253-254.)  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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have discovered the facts giving rise to the amended allegations in approximately June 2022 after reviewing Defendant Fidelity National Title Group’s motion for summary judgment and after conducting depositions.  (Lucal Dec.)  Defendants do not dispute this contention.  Further, Defendants do not identify any sort of prejudice that would result if leave to amend were granted. 

Defendants contend that the proposed amendment would be futile because the Court does not have jurisdiction over FNF.  However, the Court declines to consider the merits of the Proposed Third Amended Complaint at this time.  Where the opposing party claims the proposed pleading is futile, “[l]eave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.”  (Howard v. Cty. of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428; see also Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 CA3d 1045, 1048.)  Defendants have not adequately made such a showing.  The Court will determine whether it has jurisdiction over Defendant FNF in ruling on Defendant’s upcoming motion to quash.

Moving party to give notice.