TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes’ First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order. Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes’ Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes to give notice. 

REASONING

The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) A party may discover the need to amend after all pleadings are completed (the case is “at issue”) and new information requires a change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. (See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380.)

“The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [trial court’s denial of leave to amend was proper where those factors were present].) If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 [describing same].)

A motion for leave to amend must: 

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) 

Further, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify the following:

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to assert a claim for declaratory relief. Plaintiff argues that after conducting discovery, he now proposes adding a new claim concerning the contractual language at issue. Plaintiff also moves to bifurcate his equitable cause of action for declaratory relief to be tried before his claims for specific performance and breach of contract. The motion is unopposed.

The Court finds that amendment is proper here. While Plaintiff states only that Defendant’s discovery responses and deposition made him aware that a claim for declaratory relief was proper (Mot., Hsu Decl. ¶ 4), the Court notes that this action is new, and there is no perceived prejudice to Defendant to adjudicate this new claim. Plaintiff has provided a copy of the proposed pleading and a redlined copy of the same, making the proposed additions evident. Accordingly, Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes’ First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order. 

Plaintiff also moves to bifurcate his equitable cause of action for declaratory relief to be tried before his claims for specific performance and breach of contract. First, the Court notes that this motion is improper, as a party may not file two motions in one without obtaining two hearing reservations and paying two motion filing fees. Plaintiff is advised that all motions must be filed individually, and any failure to do so will result in a continuance of any motion beyond the one motion limit per hearing reservation and filing fee.

Even if the motion were properly filed, the motion is premature. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b), “[t]he court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” Although there may be a basis to bifurcate, the Court generally considers and rules on bifurcation motions on the date of the Final Status Conference. Thus, Plaintiff Jacob Maymudes’ Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.