Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2020-01142028, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Before the Court is the Motion by Plaintiff Maria Corchis, individually and as Trustee of the Maria Corchis Separate Property Trust dated June 14, 2006 (“Plaintiff”), for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).  The Motion is CONTINUED.

In brief, Plaintiff retained new counsel to represent her in approximately April 2022 and her new counsel has concluded that a SAC is necessary to name essential parties and assert viable claims that, for reasons unknown to new counsel, either were not previously asserted by Plaintiff’s prior counsel or were asserted and then dropped from the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also asserts that it believes this action should be consolidated with another action pending in this court (although it is not clear whether a Motion to Consolidate has been filed).

Defendant and Cross-Complainant George I. Folk (“Defendant/Cross-Complainant”) opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds, among other things, that although Plaintiff attached a copy of her proposed SAC to her motion, she did not comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1324 subsections (a) and (b) of the California Rules of Court, which sets forth the required contents of a motion to amend a pleading and the accompanying declaration.

The Court agrees that the Motion does not comply with CRC 3.1324(a) and (b),  It therefore continues the hearing on the Motion to September 26, 2022 at 1:30 to permit moving party to provide a supplemental Declaration setting forth the necessary information.  The supplemental declaration shall be filed and served no later than August 29, 2022.  No additional briefing by any party is required or authorized.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).)  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) Additionally, any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (CRC 3.1324(a).) A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (CRC 3.1324(b).)

California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 451, 461.) This liberality only applies so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564.)

The Court notes that, even setting aside the potential for a SAC, this case is no longer at issue, because Defendant/Cross-Complainant Folk (the party opposing this Motion) himself very recently sought – and was granted – leave to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court on its own motion continues the trial from its current date of October 24, 2022 to May 15, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. and continues the Mandatory Settlement Conference now set for September 30, 2022 to April 14, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C31.