Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV01722, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01722    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint that eliminates references to Defendants who Plaintiff has since dismissed from the case.  (Motion at p. 3.)  Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the “First Amended Complaint mistakenly alleges causes of action against Plaintiff’s employer and supervisor, and mistakenly alleges that the owner of the property is Laterra Development, LLC.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff also seeks “to clarify the allegations against property owners 12575 Venice Investments LP and LT Building Corp.”  (Ibid.)  The Motion is unopposed.

            On December 12, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to permit Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration in support of the Motion, which Plaintiff filed on December 14, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

Amendments to Pleadings: General Provisions

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

            To wit, without notice to the other party the Court has wide discretion to allow either party (i) to add or strike the name of a party or (ii) to correct a mistake in the name of a party or a mistake in any other respect “in furtherance of justice” and “on any terms as may be proper.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also Marriage of Liss (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1429.) Alternatively, after notice to the other party, the Court has wide discretion to allow either party to amend pleadings “upon any terms as may be just.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1). Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

            Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is liberally granted. (Berman vs. Bromberg (1986) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489 [this has been an established policy in California since 1901] (citing Frost v. Whitter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Thomas v. Bruza (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 150, 155).) The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.) Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].)

            “The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 6:636 (hereafter Weil & Brown).) Denial of a motion to amend is rarely justified if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party. (Id. at ¶ 6:639, citations omitted.) However, if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Id. at ¶ 6:655, citations omitted. Absent prejudice, any claimed delay alone is not grounds for denial. “If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:653 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565).) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. . . . But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not the kind of prejudice the court will consider.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:656, citations omitted.)

            “Even if some prejudice is shown, the judge may still permit the amendment but impose conditions, as the Court is authorized to grant leave ‘on such terms as may be proper.’” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:663, citation omitted.) For example, the court may cause the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs and fees incurred in preparing for trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:664 (citing Fuller v. Vista Del Arroyo Hotel, 42 Cal.App.2d 400, 404).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324: Procedural Requirements

            Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

            In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

“(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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff has included a copy of the proposed second amended complaint, and described the differences between the first amended complaint and second amended complaint as follows:

Paragraph 1 of the SAC is substantially similar to paragraph 1 of the FAC, except for the elimination of references to Amera Enterprises, LLC, Oscar Enrique Castillo, and Laterra Development, LLC, now dismissed from the case. Paragraph 2 of the SAC is the same as paragraph 2 of the FAC. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the FAC have been eliminated and replaced with paragraphs 3-5 of the SAC. Paragraphs 7-9 of the FAC are now substantially similar to paragraphs 6-8 of the SAC. Paragraphs 10-23 of the FAC have been replaced by paragraphs 9- 28 of the SAC, with all allegations against Amera Enterprises, LLC, Oscar Enrique Castillo, and Laterra Development, LLC, eliminated, and the cause of action for negligence being alleged only against Defendants 12575 Venice Investments LP, LT Building Corp., and DOES 3 through 50. Paragraphs 29-40 of the SAC are substantially similar to paragraphs 24-34 of the FAC, except with all allegations against Amera Enterprises, LLC, Oscar Enrique Castillo, and Laterra Development, LLC, eliminated, and the cause of action for premises liability being alleged only against Defendants 12575 Venice Investments LP, LT Building Corp., and DOES 3 through 50.

(Motion at p. 4.) 

Plaintiff’s original declaration describes the effect of the amendment and why the amendment is necessary and proper.  (See generally Torres Decl.)  The Supplemental Torres declaration indicates:

3. I did not become aware of the facts which necessitated Plaintiff requesting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint until late October 2023, when I received documentation from now dismissed Defendant Laterra Development LLC that the property at which Plaintiff was injured was owned by 12575 Venice Investments LP and LT Building Corp., and not Laterra Development, LLC.

4. Plaintiff could not have sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint earlier because Plaintiff did not have knowledge of facts supporting causes of action against 12575 Venice Investments LP and LT Building Corp.

(Supplemental Torres Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally and substantively proper.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

            Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed second amended complaint on or before January 31, 2024.

            The Court also orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.

DATED:  January 11, 2024                            ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court