Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV46412, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46412    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs Noah Meiner, Lennifer Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson

Resp. Party:    None

Meiner et al.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. 

BACKGROUND:

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Noah Meiner, Lennifer Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson (“Meiner et al.”) filed their Complaint against Defendants Robin Amelia Sheehan, Brian Morgan Heit, Matthew Jacob Feaver, and Heit Law Group (“Sheehan et al.”). The underlying issue regards the alleged malpractice (and related claims) of Sheehan et al. in Meiner et al.’s prior lawsuit on a specific e-spam law.

On January 25, 2022, Sheehan et al. filed: (1) Answer to Meiner et al.’s Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Gregory Walston and Walston & Associates (“Walston et al.”).

On January 26, 2022, Meiner et al. amended their Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with ABG Law PC and Doe 2 with Adept Legal Counsel PC.

On April 21, 2022, Walston et al. filed: (1) Answer to Sheehan et al.’s Cross-Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against General Star Insurance Company (actual name General Star Indemnity Company), Robin Amelia Sheehan, Jay Fink, Noah Meiner, Lennifer Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson. (On August 3, 2022, the Court sustained Meiner et al.’s Demurrer to the first amended version of this Cross-Complaint.)

On July 22, 2022, Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant General Star Indemnity Company (“General Star”) filed its Cross-Complaint against Meiner et al., Sheehan et al., and Walston et al.

On September 21, 2022, Meiner et al. filed their Answer to General Star’s Cross-Complaint.

On September 28, 2022, the Court granted General Star’s Motion for Order to Sever General Star’s Cross-Complaint and Walston et al.’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On November 17, 2022, Walston et al. filed their Answer to General Star’s Cross-Complaint.

On January 3, 2023, Meiner et al. filed their Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Meiner et al. concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities; (2) Declaration of Jacob Harker; and (3) Proof of Service.

On February 3, 2023, the Court granted Walston et al.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

ANALYSIS: 

I.           Legal Standard 

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.)

The court may also, in its discretion and 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 Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.)

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The Court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

II.        Discussion 

A.      Rules of Court

Meiner et al. complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

First, Meiner et al. submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading, which is serially numbered as Attachment 1 to the Motion.

Second, Attachment 2 is a red-lined version of the proposed First Amended Complaint, which shows exactly all the items that would be deleted and added, as well as exactly where those deletions and additions are located.

Finally, Meiner et al. submitted a separate supporting declaration from Jacob Harker that describes the effect of the amendment (to name Walston et al., ABG Law P.C., and Adept Legal Counsel, P.C. as new defendants; to allege new facts; and to add new causes of action), why the amendment is necessary and proper (because new facts were discovered during the course of the litigation), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (after Walston et al. filed declarations on May 25, 2022 and December 6, 2022), and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier (this Motion was filed less than a month after the December 6, 2022 declaration of Walston et al.) (Motion, Decl. Harker, ¶¶ 1–4.)

B.      Prejudice to Defendants/Cross-Complainants

None of the Parties have opposed the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

However, the Court notes that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement were filed on the same day. Considering that the Court has recently granted Walston’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, the Court finds that allowing Meiner to amend their pleading to include new allegations and causes of action against Walston might be prejudicial and contrary to the settlement Meiner has agreed to.

The Court finds that there does not exist good cause for allowing the amendment. The Court DENIES without prejudice Meiner’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

III.     Conclusion 

Meiner’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.