Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 21SMCV01695, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV01695, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01695 Hearing Date: August 3, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Levens, Case No. 21SMCV01695

Hearing Date August 3, 2023

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau sues Levens to recover unpaid legal fees allegedly owed to law firm Freid and Goldsman, CAB’s predecessor in interest. CAB moves for leave to amend to add a new cause of action for foreclosure on a deed of trust Fried and Goldsman allegedly recorded against Levens’ property in 2014.

Courts must exercise liberality in allowing amendments to pleadings absent prejudice to the adverse party. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 739, 761. A motion for leave to amend should only be denied if the opposing party can show meaningful prejudice as a result of granting the motion. Atkinson, supra. Even if a valid amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay may of itself be a valid reason for denial of leave to amend. Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486.

Trial is scheduled for September 5, 2023. If the motion is granted, defendant would not be able to conduct discovery on the new claim, including the affirmative defense of duress, as argued in opposition. This would cause prejudice to defendant.

CAB provided no justification as to why it was unable to discover the deed of trust or bring this motion until now, given that the action was filed October 22, 2021. Plaintiff delayed unjustifiably, and granting the motion would prejudice defendant. DENIED.