Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV03944, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03944    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract (count 1); (2) breach of contract (count 2); (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) breach of guaranty; (5) conversion; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) fraud and concealment.         

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (the “Motion”).  The proposed second amended complaint (the “SAC”) adds an eighth cause of action for civil theft under Penal Code section 496.

DISCUSSION

CCP section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice.  (CCP § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  CCP section 576 provides that any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.  (CCP § 576.)  There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding.  (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.)  An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion.  (Id.)  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.  (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.  (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)

Under California Rules of Court (“CRC”) rule 3.1324, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that sets forth: (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 sooner.  (CRC, r. 3.1324(b).)

            The Motion complies with CRC, rule 3.1324.  For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion with five days leave to file the proposed SAC.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)  On its own Motion, the Court continues the trial date to February 13, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. and the final status conference to February 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.  All pre-trial deadlines are continued to correspond with the new trial date.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

       Dated this 1st day of May 2023