Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV19154, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19154    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Calabasas

Responding Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mountains Restoration Trust, Inc.

T/R:     CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

CROSS-COMPLAINANT 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.)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant moves for leave to file a first-amended cross-complaint to add a new Cross-Defendant, Tree People, Inc. Cross-Complainant asserts that it learned that Tree People, Inc. is the alter ego of the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mountains Restoration Trust, Inc. during investigation. In opposition, Cross-Defendant asserts that Tree People, Inc. is a separate entity from Cross-Defendant and should not be added to action.

The Court finds that amendment is in the interests of justice. Trial is not yet set in this action;  the parties will not be prejudiced. That Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant disputes the factual allegations in the amended cross-complaint is not grounds for denial.

Cross-Complainant's motion is GRANTED.