Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV12399, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12399    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 11, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Harry S. Lederman and Sandra V. Gooch, Trustees of the Gooch and Lederman Living Trust, dated August 18, 1993

Responding Party: None

T/R:    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS GRANTED.

            PLAINTIFFS 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. No opposition has been received.

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.)

            Plaintiffs move for leave to file a first amended complaint to assert causes of action for negligence and breach of contract against Beverly Oakhurst HOA. Plaintiffs allege their condo was damaged by a water leak on Defendant Cho’s balcony. Plaintiffs seek to add the HOA, which is a cross-defendant and cross-complainant in this action, as a Defendant because they have discovered facts which may give rise to liability against the HOA. Plaintiffs comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). There is no opposition.

            Leave to amend is in the interests of justice. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.