Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01504, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01504, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01504 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: C

THORN v. PLONOWSKI

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01504

HEARING: 11/21/24

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint must be FILED and SERVED by no later than 10 calendar days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Moving Party to give notice.

This contract action was filed on December 6, 2022. A First Amended Complaint was filed on April 3, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a CORRECTED First Amended Complaint because “Plaintiff’s office mistakenly filed an incorrect version of the Amended Complaint. [Cite.] In particular, Plaintiff mistakenly filed a version of the amended Complaint which named Sandra Plonowski as a Defendant rather than Community Escrow Services, Inc., a Californian corporation, along with previously named parties in differing capacities. [Cite.]” (Motion 2:21-25.)

No Opposition has been filed as of November 19, 2024.

The Court may permit a party to amend its operative pleading in the furtherance of justice and on such terms as may be just. (CCP §473(a)(1).) 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/revisions.