Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case Number: 22STCV35328, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Chetiry LP vs. Marta Alicia Cisneros, et al., 22STCV35328

Moving Party: Defendants Marta Alicia Cisneros, Jonathan Villeda, and Sindy Mariela Yoc Perez

This is a landlord-tenant dispute. Defendants originally filed their answer in pro per. After obtaining counsel, Defendants filed this motion for leave to amend answer on September 5, 2023. Defendants are requesting leave to file an amended answer to add additional affirmative defenses and remove the admission on p. 1, item 3b #1 that states “Defendant admit that all statements of the complaint or cross complaint are true Except: 1: Damage to property, 2. Never refuse the access to handyman for repairs he never show up to fix all as per request.” Defendants want to add the affirmative defenses so that they are able to defend their case in court. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

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).) CCP § 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.)

In this case, Defendants requested leave to amend their answer because they have obtained counsel and wish to add affirmative defenses in order to defend their case. Requests to amend answers are to be liberally considered. Additionally, the trial in this case is not until May 2024, so there would be no prejudice to Plaintiff if Defendants are allowed to amend their answer at this time.

Defendants’ proposed amended answer must be separately filed and served forthwith.