Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00413, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00413    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: C

SANDOVAL v. SANDOVAL

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00413

HEARING:  04/13/23

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff MARIA SANDOVAL’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Mathew Alden is not deemed filed or served as of the date of this hearing. The Moving Party is ORDERED to FILE and SERVE the Second Amended Complaint, incorporating the changes identified by the Plaintiff in the Notice of Errata filed on March 8, 2023, by no later than 5 court days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Moving Party to give notice.

This quiet tile action was filed on May 26, 2022.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to substitute the name “Gloria Sandoval, as Administrator for the Estate of Everardo Sandoval, Deceased” as a defendant in the place of “Everardo Sandoval, Deceased, and All Persons Claiming By, Through, Or Under Such Decedent, and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the petition adverse to petitioner’s title, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto.”

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, 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.” (emphasis added.) (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

In light of the liberality associated with granting motions for leave to amend up to and including the time of trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to make the proposed amendments. Defendants maintain their right to compel discovery, demur, move to strike, or move for summary judgment.

The unopposed Motion is GRANTED.