Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV46584, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 25, 2022

Case Name: Garcia, et al. v. YH Solution, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 21STCV04623

Matter: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer

Moving Party: Defendants Steve Yeschin and Adam Hilaly

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Defendants Steve Yeschin and Adam Hilaly seek leave to file a first amended answer.  Defendants indicate that they wish to correct a mistake: “Defendants’ Answer filed April 21, 2021 has a mistake in Paragraph 10, insofar as the affirmative defense set forth is incomplete with only a prefatory clause stated, without any language specifying the intended affirmative defense. Defendants’ only amendment sought is to add fourteen (14) words to the Ninth Affirmative Defense in Paragraph 10, the effect of which being, to specify the intended affirmative defense in Paragraph 10 where the sentence is erroneously incomplete by mistake.” 

The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473, 576.)  In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.”  (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.)  Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)  The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.  (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

As there is no opposition, the Motion is granted.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.