Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2020-00016394-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00016394-CU-PO-CTL KASS VS HUME & COMPANY INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to Amend, 11/21/2023

The motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED.

As an initial matter, the court notes that the supporting declaration of Kseniya Y. Stupak does not address all of the requirements set forth in CRC 3.1324(b). Nevertheless, the court elects to exercise its discretion and consider the merits of the motion despite this procedural shortcoming. See Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 ('Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court's function to see that justice is done.'); see also Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Assn. v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 758 ('The law always favors substance over form[.]').

Turning to the merits, although it appears that plaintiff has been aware of the underlying facts giving rise to the amendment for some time, Nova Casualty has failed to make a sufficient showing of prejudice.

The fact that the amendment will require additional discovery does not justify denying leave to amend.

See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 ('The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.').

Moreover, issues surrounding the merits of the proposed amendment can be addressed via an appropriate pleadings challenge, an evidentiary-based motion, or at trial. See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.

However, given that the trial date is less than two months away, the court will continue trial of this matter to a mutually agreeable date to be determined by the parties and the court at the hearing on the motion.

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).

Plaintiff must file and serve the FAC by January 22, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3053563  49