Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV00451, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22SMCV00451    Hearing Date: August 29, 2023    Dept: O

Case Name:  Falcon Enterprises, LLC v. 8210 Western Ave 26, LLC, et al.

Case No.:                    22SMCV00451

Complaint Filed:                   3-30-22

Hearing Date:            8-29-23

Discovery C/O:                     3-28-24

Calendar No.:            8

Discover Motion C/O:          4-15-24

POS:                           OK

Trial Date:                             4-28-24

SUBJECT:                MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Falcon Enterprises, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Defendants 8210 S. Western Ave 26, LLC, Mama Moti, LLC, YHK 18, LLC, Javid Somekh and Yehezkel Kashanian

 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Falcon Enterprises, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED. 

 

The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified:  "If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend; and, where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion."  See Morgan v. Sup.Ct.(1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 (emphasis added).  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," absent prejudice to the adverse party.  See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.

 

            Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence or added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.  See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.  Delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial of leave of amend.  If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial.  See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.

 

            Falcon’s counsel submits a declaration that substantially complies with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324(b).  Falcon’s counsel testifies to the nature of the proposed amendments, the effect of those amendments the new facts or circumstances that prompted these new amendments and why the amendments are necessary and proper.  See Dec. of T. Hanigan, ¶¶3-5. 

 

            Defendants fail to establish that any prejudice will result if the amendment is allowed.  The trial date is not until 4-28-24.  The proposed amendments do not raise new facts or new grounds for liability.  As Plaintiff points out, the issue of whether Defendants obtained the requisite building permits and COOs has been at issue from the outset of the action.  Defendants fail to specifically identify additional discovery that will required by the amendments, nor do they explain why additional discovery would be prejudicial given that the trial date is not until 4-28-24.