Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC09128, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC09128    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiffs Sonia Pulliam & Derek Pulliam

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 472, 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Sonia Pulliam and Derek Pulliam’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs may file the Amended Complaint.

Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service as to Amended Complaint is scheduled for November 17, 2022 at 9:30 AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of August 19, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 19, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On December 30, 2021, Plaintiffs Sonia Pulliam and Derek Pulliam (“Plaintiffs”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendants Fernando Robles, Felipe Robles, Maria De Jesus Robles, and Vista Realty Inc. dba Vista Sotheby’s International Realty (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) common counts, and (3) intentional tort arising out of an alleged violation of a rental agreement.

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.  It appears that Plaintiffs did not make a reservation for the hearing as a hearing on the Motion never took place.

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (“Motion”), which appears to be identical to the March 2, 2022, Motion.  Plaintiffs made a reservation for hearing on this Motion for August 23, 2022.

No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).)

After the period for amending a pleading without leave of court has passed, the pleading may still be amended under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a) and § 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.  [Citation.]”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422.)  Notwithstanding the “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 the allegations that 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(a), (b).)

III.            Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs move for an order allowing them to file an Amended Complaint.  The Court notes that Plaintiffs have filed Proof of Service as to each Defendant; however, no responsive pleadings have been filed.  Thus, Plaintiffs do not require leave of court to file the Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs may file the Amended Complaint.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Sonia Pulliam and Derek Pulliam’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs may file the Amended Complaint.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service as to Amended Complaint is scheduled for November 17, 2022 at 9:30 AM in Department 25 at Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.