Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV02094, Date: 2024-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02094    Hearing Date: August 23, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Araik Erick Zanzanian v. Darnell Darnel, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV02094

MOTION:                 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

HEARING DATE:   08/23/2024

Background

Plaintiff Araik Erick Zanzanian filed a premises liability and negligence action against Defendants Darnell Darnell, Carney R. Shegerian, and Shekar Hollywood Hills, LLC (collectively “Defendants”). Defendant Darney filed a general denial of the complaint on June 28, 2024.  On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Jonathan Prince as a defendant and filed the instant motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under the Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although 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 [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) 

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Analysis

Here, the motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Plaintiff's counsel provided a declaration stating that an initial client interview uncovered misstatements about the events surrounding the dog bite incident leading to the premises liability and negligence claim. (Barmakszian Decl. ¶3-4.) Counsel provides the effect of the amendment because she avers that the amendment is being sought to correct the events and facts to prosecute his claim and recover damages fairly. (Id. ¶4-5.) Counsel additionally states that the amendment will not prejudice the Defendants or make "any" difference in the amount of damages, if any, that the Defendants will have to pay. (Id. ¶4.) The motion additionally includes a copy of the proposed FAC. (Barmakszian Decl.; Exh. 1.) Defendants do not file in opposition to the motion. Based on this, the Court finds the requirements for leave to be granted to have been met. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file his FAC is GRANTED.

The proposed FAC submitted with this motion shall be filed within 3 court days.