Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case Number: 23STCV00908, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Parvis Shavalian, et al. vs. Ramin Kohanim, et al.; 23STCV00908

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Parvis Shavalian, Ilanit Shavalian, Ilan Shavalian, and Kourosh Shavalian

[This is an unopposed motion seeking leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The action was filed January 12, 2023. Trial is set for July 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel correctly sought a stipulation allowing the filing of the First Amended Complaint. But he received no response. Hence this motion. And the filing of the motion received no response either. It is unfortunate that it was necessary for this unopposed motion to be filed, burdening Plaintiff and the Court with what appears to be an unnecessary use of time and resources. Parties are encouraged to behave in a manner that does not place unnecessary burdens on the parties and the Court]

Plaintiffs filed this action on January 12, 2023. Plaintiff claims that he has learned additional information in discovery that require that he amend and assert additional facts and claims. Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to CCP § 473(a)(1). The trial is set for July 22, 2024. No opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion has been filed. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that he sought a stipulation regarding amending the complaint, but never heard anything back from Defendants. Hence this unopposed motion.

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 § 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.)

In this case, Plaintiff requested leave to amend after learning new information through discovery. Trial is still over ten months away. Defendants would not be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint at this stage of the case. Additionally, none of the defendants have filed any opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion.

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.