Judge Martha K. Gooding, Case 22-01245812 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 22-01245812, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion for Leave to File Amended Cross-Complaint

2) Case Management Conference

The unopposed Motion by Cross-Complainant Schroeder Management Company, Inc. (“Cross-Complainant”) for Leave to File a Second Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 576 and 473(a).

Pursuant to CCP section 576, “[a]ny 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.) Similarly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (a).) “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…” (Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (a).)

“[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading...” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 168, 175.) Additionally, “the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^th 1422, 1428). “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Ibid.) “Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Ibid.)

“If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530).

Here, there is no opposition to the Motion and thus, there is no contention that the proposed amendment would prejudice any party. Particularly given that no trial date has even been set, there is no basis to find any prejudice would result from the proposed amendment.

The Court finds the Motion is timely and amendment will not result in prejudice to any party. Consequently, the Motion is granted.

Cross-Complainant is ordered to separately file and serve the proposed Second Amended Cross-Complaint, in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the Price Declaration, within 10 days of the date of this Order.

Cross-Complainant is ordered to give notice.