Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV20631, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20631    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Oxnard Tires Inc. (“OTI”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”), filed on September 22, 2022, alleges seven causes of action arising out of an employment relationship. 

            On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (the “Motion”).  The proposed third amended complaint (the “TAC”) adds OTI as a party to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent transfer.  (See Declaration of Ken Boyd (“Boyd Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure (“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 OTI’s inadvertent omission from the SAC’s sixth cause of action was discovered in October 2023.  (See Boyd Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)  Plaintiff’s counsel also declares that Plaintiff has exchanged written discovery with OTI that relates to the fraudulent transfer claim and that no depositions have yet been taken.  (Boyd Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

OTI argues that it will be prejudiced by the proposed amendment because it will incur additional litigation costs.  OTI provides no specific evidence of the anticipated extra costs to demonstrate prejudice that overcomes the liberal policy of allowing amended pleadings.[1]

            The Court finds that the Motion sets forth sufficient facts to permit the filing of the TAC.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion with five days leave to file the TAC.

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 8th day of December 2023