Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 19STCV39466, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39466    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Aecom Energy & Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

I.                   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Code Civ. Proc. section 473 subd. (a)(1) states that:

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.

“The trial court has discretion to permit or deny the amendment of the complaint, but instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.)

“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 ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .’ [Citation.] A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1)Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3)State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

Such a motion must include a supporting 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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff Aecom Energy & Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff) seeks leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC), including the following changes. First, the FAC is to replace Aecom Energy & Construction, Inc. as plaintiff with URS Holdings, Inc. based on corporate transactions which have given the right to enforce the underlying judgment to URS, which is a subsidiary of the same parent company as Aecom. (Motion at pp. 9–10.) Plaintiff also seeks to add allegations of an alter ego relationship between Defendants Topolewski and Northern Resources, and to add further allegations concerning the procedural history in the underlying litigation, including the entry of a new judgment in Aecom’s favor against Topolewski. (Motion at p. 8.)

Defendant Topolewski in opposition argues that Plaintiff has failed to explain why these corporate transactions and transfer of rights to enforce the judgment were not introduced sooner. (Opposition at p. 2.) Defendant further argues that the introduction of alter ego allegations would occasion new discovery, which would prejudice Defendant and potentially delay the trial date. (Opposition at pp. 2–4.)

Plaintiff has shown good cause for seeking leave to amend here. The right to enforce the underlying, amended judgment has been transferred to URS, in a transaction that took place in January 2020. (Kumar Decl. ¶ 5.) The underlying judgment was amended to reflect this substitution in June 2023. (Hiatt Decl. ¶ 11.) Although Defendant contends that the motion should have been brought sooner, the present motion was brought within a reasonable time after the judgment at issue was amended. Furthermore, Defendant’s arguments with respect to prejudice resulting from the addition of alter ego allegations are speculative. Much discovery has already been propounded concerning the relationship between Topolewski and Northern Resources, and trial is not set to begin until April 2024. The proposed prejudice is therefore minimal.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.