Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV34133, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34133    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 11, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions for Leave to File First Amended Answers

Moving Party: Defendants Darryl Wong, 3344 Rowena Avenue LLC and Emily Aspland

Responding Party: None

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWERS ARE GRANTED.

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. 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.)

Defendants Darryl Wong, 3344 Rowena Avenue LLC, and Emily Aspland move for leave to file first amended answers to add the affirmative defense of failure to join indispensable parties. Defendants assert they recently learned that Plaintiff’s parents also are owners of the real property at issue in this action, making them indispensable parties. Plaintiff does not oppose these motions. The Court finds that amendment is in the interest of justice.

Defendants’ motions for leave to amend are GRANTED.