Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV10072, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: September 27, 2022

Case Name: Enjoy Yu Furniture Co., Ltd. v. Home Furniture International, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV11041

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

Moving Party: Defendants Home Furniture International, LLC and Abraham Amouyal 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Enjoy Yu Furniture Co., Ltd.

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party 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. 

This is an action in which Plaintiff Enjoy Yu Furniture Co., Ltd. alleges that Defendants Home Furniture International, LLC and Abraham Amouyal failed to pay for delivered furniture.

Defendants seek leave to file an amended answer to add two affirmative defenses: breach of warranty and novation. 

Plaintiff opposes the amendment, stating there is long, unexplained delay and prejudice in that Plaintiff will have “to file a demurrer or motions practice, or conduct additional discovery based on the additional affirmative defenses asserted.”

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.)

Given the trial date of January 9, 2023, the Court cannot say there is sufficient prejudice to warrant a denial of the proposed amendment.  If need be, any potential prejudice can be neutralized by a brief trial continuance.  

In sum, the Motion is granted.

Moving party 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.