Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV23585, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23585 Hearing Date: November 13, 2023 Dept: 61
Plaintiff Joseph Cha’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 Joseph Cha
(Plaintiff) seeks leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) combining the
operative complaints of this action and the consolidated action of Jessie
Mechem, et al. v. Lennar Homes of California, LASC Case No. 23STCV03984.
That case’s addition brings an additional 14 plaintiffs from the Mechem
action, as well has five additional claimants, themselves the owners of
property within the same subdivision alleging violations of Civil Code §§ 896
and 897. (Libertino Decl. ¶¶ 2.) Plaintiff has presented a proposed amended
complaint identifying all changes to be made, and explaining the rationale of
the amendment to be the case’s recent consolidation. Defendant has filed no
opposition to this motion.
The motion is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff to provide notice.