Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV21041, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21041    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Cedric L. Price and Hazara Price’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs 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).)

Plaintiffs Cedric L. Price and Hazara Price (Plaintiffs) seek leave to add Defendant Danco, Inc. to the second cause of action for slander of title and to re-add them to the sixth cause of action for elder abuse, which was previously dismissed against them. The basis for the amendments is the allegation that Plaintiffs have provided Danco with proof that the property interests it obtained from Defendant Jarrell Davis (Davis) were grounded in forgeries, but Danco has continued to claim an interest in Plaintiffs’ properties. (Motion at p. 1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that he had an understanding with Danco’s prior counsel that Danco would meaningfully consider early resolution of their dispute with Plaintiff concerning the property if Plaintiff presented evidence of the forged basis for Danco’s claimed interest. (Mulkerin Decl. ¶ 7.) However, the attorney with whom Plaintiff made this understanding left the firm in February 2023, signaling Danco’s lack of interest in restoring Plaintiff’s property of their own volition. (Mulkerin Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs intend to allege facts showing that Danco had no reasonable basis for believing the interests it purchased from Davis were genuine, as they were purchased without investigation and at a steep discount. (Mulkerin Decl. ¶ 9.)

The motion complies with the requirements of the statute and the rules of court. The motion is supported by a declaration and memorandum, and includes a proposed amended pleading. Plaintiffs have identified by page and line the proposed amendments and corrections to be made. (Motion at pp. 5–8.) No opposition to the motion has been filed.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.