Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV01396, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01396    Hearing Date: March 8, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Greenspoon Marder, LLP (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Falcon International Corp. (“Defendant”) to collect fees allegedly owed to Plaintiff stemming from Plaintiff’s prior legal representation of Defendant. Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to file a First Amended Complaint to assert a cause of action against Defendant for breach of a written contract based on a written retention agreement between the parties recently produced in the course of discovery. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “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 ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) 

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines where allegations would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Analysis

Plaintiff brings this motion to add a cause of action for breach of a written contract against Defendant. Plaintiff was previously unable to locate a written retainer agreement with Defendant in its filed, and its original Complaint thus pled a cause of action against Defendant for breach of an oral contract. In the course of discovery, Defendant produced a written retainer agreement between the parties. Plaintiff now seeks to amend its Complaint to add a cause of action for breach of that written retainer agreement. As the parties are in dispute regarding whether the written retention agreement applies to the work which forms the subject of this lawsuit, Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint retains the original cause of action for breach of oral contract as an alternative to relief under the written agreement.

The Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to justify the proposed amendment and has complied with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 in seeking this amendment. The Court also notes Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s motion or otherwise provided the Court with any basis to deny the relief requested by Plaintiff. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.