Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2019-00057433-CU-CD-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 20, 2023

07/21/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Construction Defect Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00057433-CU-CD-CTL 3 TIER INVESTMENTS LLC VS RICHARD & RICHARD CONSTRUCTION CO INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Tony Reed and Tony Reed Construction, Inc.'s motion for leave to amend answer to complaint of Plaintiff 3 Tier Investments, LLC is GRANTED. CCP § 473(a).

Addressing the procedural issue Reed raises in reply, the court exercises its discretion in favor of considering Plaintiff's late-filed and late-served opposition.

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, absent prejudice to the adverse party. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence or added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487. Plaintiff has not demonstrated prejudice sufficient to warrant denial of this motion. Reed's counsel's declaration adequately explains the reasons for the delay in seeking to add an affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations. To the extent Plaintiff claims prejudice as a result of Reed's delay, Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence of such prejudice. Under the analysis of Kittredge Sports Co., v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, even if Plaintiff is able to establish that Reed unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to amend, absent evidence of prejudice, it would be an abuse of discretion were the court to deny leave to amend. Under these circumstances, leave to amend is proper. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion in favor of allowing Reed leave to amend.

Reed shall file and serve Reed's amended answer within 10 days of this ruling. The court cannot deem Reed's proposed amended answer filed and served because the proposed pleading was submitted as an exhibit and not filed as a separate document.

The Trial date remains as set.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2958871  13