Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV35963, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35963    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 68

            This is an employment law case wherein Plaintiffs are suing Defendants CS Heritage Industry, Inc., Los Angeles Industry, Inc., and Edith Chin (Defendants), for an alleged claim under PAGA and other employment-related claims. Defendants filed this motion on October 25, 2022, after they obtained new counsel. Defendants are requesting leave to file a second amended answer to add new affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the basis that Defendants do not have a compelling justification for amending their answer, and Defendant’s amendments would be untimely and prejudice Plaintiff. However, via a stipulation filed on November 21, 2022, the trial in this case was continued from April 3, 2023, to September 25, 2023.

            This court is authorized, in its discretion, to “allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Code of Civil Procedure section 576, likewise, provides that “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 to any pleading . . .” (CCP § 576.) The determination of whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading rests in the court’s sound discretion.

            California law generally calls for great liberality in allowing amendments to answers because “a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.” (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

            Defendants requested leave to amend their answer because they allege that the answer filed by their previous attorney was inadequate and did not plead sufficient affirmative defenses. Requests to amend answers are to be liberally considered. Additionally, now that the trial in this case has been continued to next September, there is no indication that Plaintiffs would be unfairly prejudiced by allowing Defendants to amend their answer at this time.

            Defendants’ motion for leave to file a second amended answer is GRANTED.