Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV18293, Date: 2023-06-23 Tentative Ruling

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 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend to file a first amended complaint (the “Motion”). The proposed first amended complaint (the “FAC”) names Xifin Inc. (“Xifin”) as a Defendant. (See Declaration of Youssef H. Hammoud (“Hammoud Decl.”), Exhibit 1.)

CCP section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. (See CCP § 473, subd. (a).) 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).)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Plaintiff learned that Xifin was the appropriate defendant during discovery. (See Hammoud Decl. ¶ 2.)[1] The Court finds that this newly discovered evidence constitutes a suitable basis for filing the proposed FAC. For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Plaintiff is ordered to file the FAC within 10 days of the date of this order.

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.

[1] After discovering that Xifin was the appropriate defendant, Plaintiff dismissed her claims against Defendant Renaissance Imaging Medical Associates, Inc. on August 3, 2023.