Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01879, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01879    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Janet B. Sikiyan

Resp. Party:    Defendants Haskell & Davis CPA, David Haskell, Gregory Davis, and Shannon Deck

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Defendant is granted leave to file a responsive pleading.

BACKGROUND:

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Janet B. Sikiyan filed a complaint against Defendants Haskell & Davis CPA, David Haskell, Gregory Davis, and Shannon Deck.

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint.

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to Amend. Plaintiff concurrently filed her Request for Judicial Notice in support of the motion.

On August 31, 2022, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. Defendants concurrently filed their Declaration of Joseph C. Craft in support of the opposition.

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Reply in Further Support of Motion for Leave to Amend. 

ANALYSIS:

I.           Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) the Court’s Tentative Ruling on demurrers dated May 9, 2022; and (2) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed June 17, 2022.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous as to both items. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).) In addition, a tentative ruling merely “indicate[s] the way the judge is prepared to decide the matter based on the information before him or her when the ruling was prepared.” (Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1245, quoting Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2009) § 9:111 (rev. # 1 2007).)  Thus, a tentative ruling has no legal significance and would not be the subject of judicial notice.

II.        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. Superior Court (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).)

III.     Discussion

A.      Rules of Court

Plaintiff complied with Rule 3.1324(a).

First, she submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading, which is serially numbered, as Exhibit B in her Request for Judicial Notice.

Second, she submitted as Exhibit A in her Motion a red-lined version of the First Amended Complaint, which shows exactly all which allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, and where exactly they are located.

Third, Exhibit A also shows the proposed additions and exactly where they are.

Finally, Plaintiff submits a separate supporting declaration from Justin Shrenger, Esq., that describes the effect of the amendment (to amend the Complaint after the demurrer with new causes of action), why the amendment is necessary and proper (it is addressing the Court’s reasoning as a result of the demurrer), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (as a result of the Court’s reasoning, although the underlying facts were known prior to the demurrer), and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier (because Defendants objected to the inclusion of new causes of action.) (Mot., Ex. A., pp. 1–2.)

The Court finds that there exists good cause for allowing the amendment.

B.      Prejudice to Defendant

Defendant opposes the motion and argues: (1) there is no authority for an “ex post facto” motion for leave to amend; and (2) there is no good explanation or excuse” for the amendment. Defendant does not argue that it would face any prejudice from this amendment. The Court finds that any such prejudice to Defendant would be minimal.

IV.       Conclusion

Because the Court is to exercise discretion liberally the permit amendment of the pleadings (see Kittredge Sports Co., 213 Cal.App.3d at 1047), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted.