Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV25169, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 16, 2025

Case Name: Colvin Jr. v. Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 24STCV20263

Matter: Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

Moving Party: Defendants Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Jolene Metzger, and

Jason Steinberg

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On August 12, 2024, Jessie Colvin Jr. filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Jolene Metzger, and Jason Steinberg for (1) whistleblower protection for public employees – Gov. Code 8547.8, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) whistleblower protection for reporting labor laws - Labor Code § 6310, and (4) wrongful termination.

On September 25, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer in which they assert a general denial and 30 affirmative defenses.  

Defendants now seek leave to file an amended answer.  Defendants merely wish to verify their answer.

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.)

Because it is not apparent that there would be any prejudice, the Motion is granted.  The amended answer should be filed within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice.