Judge Michael J. Strickroth, Case 2019-01092238 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2019-01092238, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to Amend

Cross-Defendants Damian Collins (“Collins”) and The Medicine Woman Group, LLC (“TMWG”) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Cross-Complaints filed by: (1) Moreno Valley Gateway, LLC and MVG Turnpike, LLC; (2) Ethan Logan; and (3) Garfield Langmuir-Logan is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part.

Collins and TMWG seek to add one affirmative defense of Statute of Frauds to their Answers to the three Cross-Complaints.

On August 17, 2023, Collins and Cross-Complainants Moreno Valley Gateway LLC, MVG Turnpike LLC and Ethan Logan filed a Stipulation and Order granting Collins leave to file First Amended Answers to the Cross-Complaints filed by (1) Moreno Valley Gateway, LLC and MVG Turnpike, LLC; and (2) Ethan Logan. (ROA No. 906.) The Court has signed the Stipulation and Order.

Although the Stipulation and Order MOOTS the instant Motion to the extent Collins seeks to amend its Answer to the Cross-Complaints filed by Moreno Valley Gateway, LLC and MVG Turnpike, LLC and Ethan Logan, the following issues remain to be resolved by the Court:

1. TMWG’s request to file an amended answer to the Cross-Complaints filed by (1) Moreno Valley Gateway, LLC and MVG Turnpike, LLC; (2) Ethan Logan; and (3) Garfield Langmuir-Logan.

2. Collins and TMWG’s request to file an amended answer to the Cross-Complaint filed by Garfield Langmuir-Logan.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), states in part, “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.” 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.”

“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. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. However, even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345; internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.

TMWG and Collins seek to add an additional affirmative defense of Statute of Frauds. TMWG and Collins have shown that current counsel of record for TMWG and Collins joined the case recently in the second half of last year and did not prepare or file the original Answers to the Cross-Complaints. (Harrison Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Current counsel recently noticed the Statute of Frauds was not included in the Answers filed by prior counsel while in the process of preparing responses to Cross-Complainant’s current discovery requests, and promptly filed this motion. (Harrison Decl., ¶ 6.) Accordingly, TMWG and Collins have shown the motion to amend is timely.

TMWG and Collins have also shown that Cross-Complainants will not be prejudiced by the filing of the First Amended Answers since trial at the time the Motion was filed was still nine months away; discovery was open and ongoing; and TMWG and Collins represented to the Court that they intended to include the defense of Statute of Frauds in their responses to discovery responses due to Cross-Complainants in March 2023.

Plaintiff has also sufficiently complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

Accordingly, the Motion to the extent it is not MOOTED by the filing of the Stipulation is GRANTED.

TMWG is to electronically file and serve its amended answers to the Cross-Complaints filed by (1) Moreno Valley Gateway, LLC and MVG Turnpike, LLC; and (2) Ethan Logan and (3) Garfield Langmuir-Logan within 10-days of the notice of this ruling.

Collins is to electronically file and serve its amended answer to the Cross-Complaint filed by Garfield Langmuir-Logan within 10-days of the notice of this ruling.

Moving parties to give notice.