Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV25416, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV25416    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 29, 2025 

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter 

Motion for Leave to Amend 

Moving Party: Defendant Raphael Stone CA, Inc. 

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Hugo Montoya Bautista and Alma Patricia Jaimez Cortes 

T/R:    DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED. 

¿ 

DEFENDANT 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 Raphael Stone CA, Inc. moves to amend its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint to correct the name under which Defendant appeared. Counsel for Defendant recently determined that Raphael Stone CA, Inc. (RS) and California-Quartz (CQ) are two discrete and unrelated entities. Defendant seeks to amend its operative answer to only include RS. Defendant also seeks to amend the reference to asbestos-specific code sections, as this matter is not asbestos-related. 

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant cannot amend the answer to make one of the Defendants “disappear.” Plaintiff argues that because both entities have answered the complaint, they are both Defendants. In reply, Defendant clarifies that it is not removing a party as CQ has filed a separate answer. 

The Court will allow amendment. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.