Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case Verdi v. Matrix Solutions LLC 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Verdi v. Matrix Solutions LLC, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Cameron Verdi moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

A. General Principles re Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

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 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 Civ. Proc., § 576.)

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.) Because the policy favoring amendment is so strong, “it is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530 (internal quotations 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. Sup.Ct. (Vickers) (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490; Melican v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176; Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 627, 649 (finding where plaintiff knew for over five months that certain claims had not been properly pleaded, and took no action to amend until after a summary judgment had been granted against it, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend the complaint); Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1150.)

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. (Rule 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. (Rule 3.1324(b).)

In ruling upon a motion for leave to file an amended pleading, the trial court has the discretion to deny the request when the pleading is deficient as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1428-1429; Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.)

B. Merits

Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff leave to file the Proposed Second Amended Complaint because it fails to state a valid cause of action. Courts usually do not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. The preferred practice is 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 Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [citation and quotations omitted].)

Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint meets the liberal standard set forth above. Further, Plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the procedural requirements for a motion for leave to amend, including specifying when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Verdi Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, 7, Exs. A-B; Verdi Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3-16.)

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted (ROA No. 267).

Plaintiff’s objections are sustained.

Plaintiff to give notice and to file and serve the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Verdi Declaration by November 4, 2022.