Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV38565, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38565    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiffs Hector Portillo and Kenya Portillo’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs Hector Portillo and Kenya Portillo move for leave to file a second amended complaint.  “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  Courts exercise their discretion “liberally to permit amendment,” and “[t]he 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.)  Courts generally do not consider the amended pleading’s validity.  (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)

Defendants New Residential Mortgage LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company contend plaintiffs’ delay has caused them prejudice.  Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend when (a) the moving party has delayed bringing the proposed amendment, and (b) the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to an opposing party.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

The prejudice defendants assert, however, does not result from plaintiffs’ delay in seeking leave to amend.  They claim prejudice in that they must repeatedly defend themselves from a case they contend has no merit.  That is not the type of prejudice contemplated by the cases finding prejudicial delay in seeking leave to amend.  (See, e.g.,  Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486 [plaintiff attempted to add unrelated cause of action on eve of trial]; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159 [defendant moved at trial to amend answer filed three years earlier].)  In this case, no trial date has been set.  Any prejudice resulting from plaintiffs’ delay is minimal.

With one caveat, permitting plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint is in furtherance of justice.  Once again, plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint includes exhibits about the wrong property, 9511 Grapefruit Ave., Hesperia, CA 92345 and wrong person, Elsa G. Solomon.  (Cara Decl., Ex. A, Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Exs. B, C.)  This case is brought by plaintiffs Hector Portillo and Kenya Portillo regarding 6109 and 6111 Northside Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90022.

Under CCP § 436, on its own motion the court hereby strikes exhibits B and C from plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.

            The motion is granted.  Plaintiffs are ordered to file the second amended complaint—excluding exhibits B and C—forthwith.