Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2020-01142028, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Maria Corchis’ Motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint, in the form included in the moving papers, no later than Wednesday, September 28, 2022, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

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).)  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.) 

Plaintiff recently retained new counsel in April of 2022. Counsel declares that in reviewing the file, he discovered the fraud-based causes of action in the original Complaint were omitted in the operative First Amended Complaint. (Recchia Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  By way of this motion, Plaintiff seeks to add in those omitted claims as well as certain new parties as defendants.

In her supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the proposed Second Amended Complaint contains additional causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud/concealment, conspiracy to defraud, and negligent misrepresentation.  The new parties are Charlene Timm, Sam Petry, Lotus Recovery, LLC, and Action Alliance Management Services, Inc. (Honey Decl., ¶ 3.)  In addition, Plaintiff seeks to add factual information with respect to the other causes of action. (Honey Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the new factual allegations in ¶¶ 1-49 of the SAC (previously 1-37 of the FAC) are more concise and orderly than previously pled. Additionally, counsel describes which paragraphs have changed and relate to which specific causes of action. (Honey Decl., ¶¶ 6-14.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares the effect of the new allegations (to add back in the fraud causes of action which were omitted from the FAC by predecessor counsel). (Honey Decl., ¶ 16.)  She states the amendment is necessary and proper because Plaintiff is an elderly woman whose first language was not English and was defrauded by Defendants.  (Honey Decl., ¶ 17.)  Finally, Plaintiff attached the proposed SAC to her declaration. (Honey Decl., ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff’s Motion substantially complies with CRC, Rule 3.1324.  

A Second Amended Cross-Complaint was only just recently filed on 8/9/22.  Counsel states that no depositions have been taken.  Trial is not until May of next year.  Thus, the Court finds that there is no prejudice to allowing the amendment, and it therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.