Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV36838, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36838    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 23, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gianna Breliant

Responding Party: Defendant Larson LLP

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

                        On November 6, 2020, Plaintiff Gianna Breliant filed the second amended complaint against Defendants Arent Fox LLP and Larson O’Brien LLP, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) legal malpractice; and (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. This action arises out of Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff in litigation relating to the alleged wrongful death of her daughter.

ANALYSIS

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a third amended complaint to add facts learned in discovery. Plaintiff does not seek to change any legal theories or add causes of action. In opposition, Defendant asserts that the motion is untimely, and Plaintiff’s claims are meritless. The Court will not determine the merits of the action in a motion for leave to amend. Any purported timeliness issue does not justify denial of this motion. The amendment is in the interests of justice.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.