Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV19110, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19110    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 8, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hin Essey Construction, Inc.

Responding Party: None

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. 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.)

Plaintiff moves for leave amend the claim for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien based on information discovered in January 2025. The primary difference between the Second Amended Complaint is that it replaces the First Cause of Action for Foreclosure of Mechanics Lien with a First Cause of Action for Enforcement of Mechanics Lien Release Bond, and it adds additional Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company, a corporation (the surety on the bond). The Court finds that amendment is in the interests of justice. Defendants do not oppose this motion show why it should not be granted.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.