Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05070, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05070    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Scholer v. Broher, Case no. 23SMCV05070

Hearing date January 21, 2025

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs Scholer sue defendants Stephen Bohrer, Bohrer Construction, Mendez Master Concrete, Inc., Mendez Leon, American Contractors Indemnity Company, and Leiva dba JJ Electric for breach of contract, fraud and conversion. Plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint following the court’s ruling sustaining in part defendants’ demurrer to the FAC. Min. Order 10/17/24. The court granted leave to file the instant motion. Id. Defendants oppose, arguing plaintiffs filed one day late.

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Courts have held “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt. Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) (“Trial 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 where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”) Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amended pleading; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading. CRC 3.1324(b) requires a declaration stating: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Defendants argue plaintiffs were required to file this motion 12/23/24 per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b). Plaintiffs filed 12/24/24. Defendants argue the motion is untimely and must be denied. A one day delay is not prejudicial. Courts must liberally grant leave to amend, so this motion will be considered on its merits. See Venture, supra.

Plaintiffs complied with CRC 3.1324. GRANTED. The SAC to be filed within 5 court days.