Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00260, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00260    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: C

Lisa Avila vs Lourdes K. Campbell, et al.

Case No.: 22NWCV00260

Hearing Date: April 23, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

#2

Tentative Ruling

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lourdes Campell’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  Defendant Campbell is ordered to separately file the proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint within five (5) days. 

Defendant/Cross-Complainant to give notice.

Background

In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Lisa Avila ("Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Lourdes Campell (“Defendant”) breached her written agreement to sell her condominium to Plaintiff by failing to timely close escrow. 

On August 10, 2022, Defendant answered the FAC and concurrently filed a Cross-Complaint.

On December 22, 2022, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff and Defendant to mediate their dispute. On December 16, 2023, this Court re-assumed jurisdiction based on a stipulation showing that it would have been cost prohibitive for Defendant to submit to arbitration.

On December 18, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Compliant.

This motion is unopposed as of April 16, 2024.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although 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 [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)  

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) 

Discussion

Defendant seeks leave of court to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint to add a third cause of action for Equitable Indemnity.  Defendant alleges the amendment is necessary in order to seek indemnity from the Seller’s Real Estate Agents.  The amended Cross-Compliant could not be filed sooner as the Court only recently lifted the stay in this matter, which previously precluded Defendant from filing the instant motion.

Counsel has filed a declaration in compliance with CRC Rule 1.324(b), which includes an explanation about when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered and why leave to amend was not sought sooner.

Defenant’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.  Defendant Campbell is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint within five (5) days.