Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV03427, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03427    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 23, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Cross-Defendants Tang Sripipat and Lin Sae Be

Responding Party: Cross-Complainants Drain Right Services, Inc. and Nery Saavedra

T/R:    CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED.

            CROSS-DEFENDANTS 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.

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).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (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 Rule 3.1324(b).)

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.)

            Cross-Defendants Tang Sripipat and Lin Sae Be move for leave to file a first amended answer to the cross-complaint filed by Cross-Complainants Drain Right Services, Inc., and Nery Saavedra. Cross-Defendants assert that after reviewing Cross-Complainants motion for summary adjudication, Cross-Defendants realized that they had inadvertently failed to include the affirmative defense of unconscionability in their answer. Cross-Defendants comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). In opposition, Cross-Complainants assert Cross-Defendants’ delay in seeking relief will prejudice them. 

            Amendment is liberally granted, and delay alone is insufficient to justify denial. Cross-Defendants may amend their answers so they can defend against Cross-Complainants summary adjudication motion.

            Cross-Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.