Judge Michael J. Strickroth, Case 2022-01259173 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2022-01259173, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a), 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 provides, “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.”

“It is well established that ‘California courts “have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” [Citation.] Indeed, “it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his [or her] pleading so that he [or she] may properly present his [or her] case.’ ” [Citation.]’ (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158, 263 Cal.Rptr. 473.) Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. [Citation.]” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) “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. [Citation.] ‘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.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 (P&D Consultants).

“Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’ [Citation.’ A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown.’ [Citation.]” Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487. “ ‘Leave to amend should not be granted where . . . amendment would be futile.’ [Citation.]” Sandler v. Sanchez (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437 (Sandler).

Higgins v. Del Faro, (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–565 states:

“A court, at any time before or after commencement of trial, may allow an amendment to a pleading in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails. In MacIsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809 [161 P.2d 449], the reason behind our liberal policy was stated as follows (pp. 815-816): ‘ “If plaintiff has a good cause of action, which by accident or mistake he has failed to set out in his complaint, the court, on motion for judgment on the pleadings, should, on his application so to do, permit him to amend.” ... The granting of the motion without leave to amend would in many cases be an absolute denial of justice, and is directly opposed to the policy of the law that cases should be tried and decided on the merits.’ And in Estate of Hunter (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 859, 865 [15 Cal.Rptr. 556], the court said: ‘The rule is well established that great liberality will be used in allowing amendments and where an amendment provides “ ‘merely the addition of matters essential to make the original cause of action complete’” the amendment should certainly be allowed by the court. [Citation.] Such an amendment effects no change in the nature of the case, and can therefore cause no surprise or prejudice to the adverse party. [Citations.]”

Magpali v. Farmers Grp., Inc., (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 488 (Magpali), as modified on denial of reh’g (Aug. 20, 1996) provides: “Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion.”

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend appears proper. The case was filed on 05-12-2022. Plaintiff requested Defendant stipulate to the filing of the First Amended Complaint in February 2023 but Defendant refused. The trial is set for 06-03-2024. Defendant has not shown any prejudice.

The Court declines to address the pseudonym issue as it is not an amendment to the operative pleading. Additionally, the court generally cannot grant different relief, or relief on different grounds, than stated in the notice of motion. Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.