Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV16036, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16036    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 55

WILLIAMS v. MUHAMMAD                                                        22STCV16036

Hearing Date:  9/7/22,  Dept. 55

#8:   MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  

Summary

On 5/13/22, Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, filed a Complaint regarding breach of residential lease agreements, alleging that defendants are liable for some unpaid rent and damage to the property, and other damages caused.

On 7/29/22, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint, for Breach of Contract, adding allegations of more missing rent payments, and damages for the expense of removing unauthorized rocks from the front yard and for driveway oil stains.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order allowing leave to file an amended complaint, on grounds including the following:

·         The proposed amended pleading is to correct, clarify, and to add claims and prayer items.

·         For example, in the initial Complaint, a partial rent payment inadvertently was omitted.

·         Plaintiff acted immediately after realizing the need to amend.

·         No prejudice would be caused, because no trial date has been set.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted.

The First Amended Complaint, attached to the motion as exhibit 1, is deemed filed and served this date.

“‘“[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts….”’”   Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 761. 

A party may be entitled to amend a pleading where there is a technical defect that can be cured by amendment, making no change in the substance of the action, such that no prejudice would be caused to the opposing parties.  Plumlee v. Poag (1984) 150 Cal. App. 3d 541, 547.  “If the original pleading has not framed the issues in an articulate and precise manner, a plaintiff should not be precluded from having a trial on the merits.”  Honig v. Fin. Corp. of Am. (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 960, 965.