Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC02508, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC02508    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 26

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Citricos Dona Sofia SPR’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005(b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of contract.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Allow Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint to include the breach of contract attachment.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 13, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of September 13, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Citricos Dona Sofia SPR (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendants Jose Luis Hurtado and La Michocana Suppliers (“Defendants”) on March 29, 2021. Defendants filed their Answer on April 28, 2021.

New counsel substituted in for Plaintiff on June 21, 2022. (Substitution of Attorney, 06/21/22.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint on August 19, 2022. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, in order to clarify the breach of contract cause of action. (Motion, Schuller Decl., ¶2.) Specifically, Plaintiff moves to add the breach of contract cause of action attachment to the Judicial Council Form Complaint, and to remove portions of the parties’ contract that were attached, as those pages are in Spanish. (Ibid.) The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a), which permits leave to amend upon the Court’s order. 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

A copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint is attached to the supporting declaration and the Motion sets forth what changes are to be made to the Complaint and where. (Motion, Schuler Decl., ¶4.) The declaration explains that Plaintiff’s current counsel substituted into the case in June 2022 and only then discovered that Plaintiff’s former counsel had not included the breach of contract cause of action attachment, but had included pages from the contract that were in Spanish. (Id. at ¶2.) A stipulation for leave to amend was sent to defense counsel but no response was received. (Id. at ¶3.)

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. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Ibid.) Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated the basis for seeking leave to amend upon substituting in new counsel. Nor will Defendants be prejudiced as no discovery has been conducted and they have made no opposition to this Motion. (Id. at ¶2.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Citricos Dona Sofia SPR’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.