Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV18830, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 4, 2022

Case Name: Angel v. Roosevelt Hotel, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV15222

Matter: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Nancy Angel 

Responding Party: Defendant Roosevelt Hotel, LLC

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. 

Plaintiff Nancy Angel seeks leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) adding two causes of action for negligence and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and removing a cause of action for violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.  Plaintiff indicates that the  “FAC also delineates the cause of actions against each particular Defendant, includes specific allegations relating to the newly alleged causes of action, and include newly acquired factual allegations against a newly added Defendant.”

Defendant Roosevelt Hotel, LLC states that it “takes no position on the present motion for leave to amend” because this action belongs in arbitration.  Defendant notes that it has filed a motion to compel arbitration.

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.)

There being no apparent prejudice, 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.