Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV11454, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11454    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 68

Matthew Garza vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al., Case No. 22STCV11454

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

­­­­­­­­BACKGROUND

            In this case, Plaintiff Garza sued the initially named Defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair and dealing, and other causes of action arising out of the denial of Plaintiff’s permanent sports disability claim. Subsequently, during discovery, Plaintiff learned that two more Defendants (NKSFB, LLC, and Nigro Karlin Segal & Feldstein, LLC, an affiliate of NKSFB, LLC) should be added to the complaint as defendants. The proposed FAC also adds claims for relief against NKSFB for Breach of Contract, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Breach of Fiduciary Duties; and it adds additional and/or clarifying factual allegations and legal arguments supporting all causes of action, including those originally levelled against the four current defendants, though no new claims of relief are asserted against those defendants. Plaintiff brings this motion, filed on October 26, 2022, pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 473, 426.50, and 576 and California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324. No opposition to Plaintiff’s motion has been filed as of December 15, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

            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.

            Leave to amend is to be liberally granted at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1986) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487; see also County of Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Kern County (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1618 (noting that a plaintiff may be granted amendment even at the time of trial).) To overcome the policy of liberally granting amendments at any stage of litigation, a defendant must show both actual prejudice and inexcusable delay. (Magpali, 48 Cal.App.4th at 487.)

            Here, Plaintiff requested leave to amend before any trial date has been set (Giller Decl., ¶ 5), and while the parties are still in the early stages of discovery (Giller Decl., ¶¶ 6 and 7). Plaintiff is not seeking to add any claims against the current defendants, nor would those defendants be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint at this stage of the case. Additionally, none of the defendants have filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint.

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint should be GRANTED.