Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05017, Date: 2024-09-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05017    Hearing Date: September 3, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Padwick v. Mcgrath-Kavinoky Law, LLP, et al., Case No. 23SMCV05017   

Hearing date: September 3, 2024

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint  

In this employment action for fraud and misrepresentation, plaintiff Padwick seeks leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to clarify factual assertions regarding an alleged “life changing bonus” plaintiff claims he was promised.

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a) and 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.  

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration stating what allegations are to be added and where, and what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must include (1) a copy of the proposed amendment, (2) specifications by page and lines the allegations that would be changed, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. See Cal. Rules of Court 3.1324(a), (b).

The motion complies with CRC rule 3.1324. Padwick’s counsel states MK refused to respond to Padwick’s discovery requests, claiming the complaint does not expressly allege the “life changing bonus” was based on MK’s revenue. Padwick specifies the amendment's effect, necessity, and propriety, as the proposed FAC seeks to clarify Padwick’s understanding that Kavinoky promised a bonus based on a percentage of MK’s revenues. Id. ¶¶ 3, 8. In opposition, MK argues the motion presents a sham pleading because Padwick alleges inconsistent versions of the same event. However, this is unpersuasive, as Padwick provides a valid reason for changing the facts to clarify his understanding of Kavinoky’s promise.

Padwick provides a red-lined copy of the proposed FAC indicating proposed changes. Id. ¶ 2; Exh. B. Padwick’s counsel states the amendment was not made earlier because he could not get an agreement with defendants to file a joint stipulation. Id. ¶ 7. Defendants would not be prejudiced, as no new legal theories would be added. Id. ¶ 3. Trial is more than a year away, and the matter is still in the discovery stage. GRANTED. Plaintiff to file the FAC within 5 court days.