Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00484, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00484    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

JOKAKE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

PASADENA OAKS LIFE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.,   

 

 

                                           Defendants

 

 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Consolidated Case No.: 22AHCV00484

Consolidated with 22STCV18721; 22AHCV00352; 22AHCV00394; 22AHCV00468; 22AHCV00477; 22AHCV00510; 22AHCV00516; 22STCV24756; 22STCL04361.

Related to: EC068916; 20GDCV00713                           

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY GRAYCON, INC. FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Date:   January 27, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

           

            I.         INTRODUCTION

            These consolidated cases concern a construction project. Before the Court is an unopposed motion by Plaintiff Graycon, Inc. for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add claims concerning a payment bond. The motion is granted.

 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. §473 provides that the court may allow a party to amend any pleading.

            “Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge: ‘The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading....’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) However, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939, 101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 657.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158, 263 Cal.Rptr. 473.) ‘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.’ (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 838.)” Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.

            California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 requires that a motion for leave to amend include a copy of the proposed pleading and identify the proposed changes; it also requires that a motion be accompanied by a declaration specifying: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request was not made sooner.

 

III.      ANALYSIS

            Graycon, Inc., a subcontractor, sues Jokake Construction Services, Inc., the prime contractor, in connection with a construction project. The project is for construction of the Las Encinas Psychiatric Hospital on property owned by Pasadena Oaks Life Properties. Graycon’s counsel, William C. Hoggard, offers a declaration in support of the motion for leave to amend. The declaration complies with the requirements of Rule 3.1324. It sets forth the effect of the proposed amendment (to add Travelers Casualty and Surety of America as additional defendants and to add a cause of action on the payment bond); and explains when counsel first learned of these facts giving rise to the amendment.

            Good cause exists for the relief requested. Relief has been timely requested. No opposition to the motion has been received.

 

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Graycon’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted. Graycon is granted ten days to separately file the amended pleading.  Graycon is also ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

           

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT