Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV19434, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19434 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: 61
Plaintiff Vanessa Melgar’s
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff to provide notice.
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 Vanessa Melgar
(Plaintiff) seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging three
new causes of action for defamation and intentional and negligent interference
with economic advantage against Doe Defendant Chris Lagrande, who is alleged to
be the customer who committed sexual harassment against Plaintiff. The
additional claims relate to allegations that Legrande falsely reported to
Plaintiff’s employer that he had a sexual relationship with Plaintiff, which
disrupted Plaintiff’s relationship with her employer. (Gutierrez Decl. Exh. A.)
The proposed FAC alleges that this false assertion was discovered after
Defendant 13333 Fenton Avenue, LLC provided requested records on October 25,
2022. (Gutierrez Decl. Exh. A. at p. 5.) A trial date has not been set in this
matter, and Plaintiff’s counsel represents that no depositions have been taken
in this matter. (Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 5.) No opposition to this motion has been
filed.
Plaintiff’s motion complies
with the above requirements. The proposed amended pleading discloses why the
new claims were not previously added, and no prejudice is likely to result to
any party by allowing amendment.
The motion is therefore
GRANTED.