Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC01393, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC01393    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: 26

Smith v. Gamboa-Sierra, et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Keenan Rashad Ross’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. DEFENDANT ROSS IS TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. ON ITS OWN MOTION, THE COURT STRIKES THE ANSWER FILED ON APRIL 11, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Larry B. Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Brenda Y. Gamboa-Sierra (“Defendant Gamboa-Sierra”) and Keenan Rashad Ross (“Defendant Ross”) on February 27, 2024. On April 11, 2024, Defendant Gamboa-Sierra purportedly filed an answer to the Complaint. Defendant Ross filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Answer on July 30, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Defendant Ross moves for leave to file an Amended Answer under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Specifically, Defendant Ross moves on the grounds that the initial Answer was incorrectly made on behalf of Defendant Gamboa-Sierra by Defendant Ross’ counsel. (Motion, Botros Decl., ¶¶2-6.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must 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 of 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).)

Defendant Ross’ Motion is supported by a declaration explaining the error in filing the original Answer on behalf of Defendant Gamboa-Sierra and discovering that error in June 2024. (Motion, ¶¶2-6.) 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, Defendant Ross simply seeks leave to file an amended Answer that is on behalf of the correct party.  Nor is there any indication of excusable delay or prejudice to Plaintiff, who has not opposed the Motion. All the requirements for leave to amend, therefore, are satisfied.

In addition to allowing Defendant Ross to file an amended Answer, the Court strikes the Answer filed on April 11, 2024 on its own motion, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision (b).

Conclusion

Defendant Keenan Rashad Ross’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. DEFENDANT ROSS IS TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. ON ITS OWN MOTION, THE COURT STRIKES THE ANSWER FILED ON APRIL 11, 2024.

Moving party to give notice.