Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV17025, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17025    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Ellie Shaya and Abraham Shaya

Resp. Party:    Defendant/Cross-Complainant Peter Antico

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND:

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Ellie Shaya and Abraham Shaya filed their Complaint against Defendant Peter Antico on a cause of action for breach of contract.

        On June 24, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint.

        On December 5, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed his Cross Complaint against Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Ellie Shaya and Abraham Shaya.

        On February 10, 2023, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

        On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed their Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

        On April 24, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed his Opposition.

        No reply or other response has been filed.

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

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants move the Court for leave to file their First Amended Complaint.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment is improper because it seeks to omit objectionable matters; and (2) that the Motion is deficient pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 because the Motion does not include the page, paragraph, and line numbers of any deleted or added allegations from the original pleadings. (Opposition, p. 2:18–20, 3:10–13.)

The Court disagrees with Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s first argument. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants may seek to amend their pleading. If Defendant/Cross-Complainant believes objectionable material remains, he may object by filing the appropriate pleading.

However, the Court agrees with Defendant/Cross-Complainant that rule 3.1324 has not been followed here. The exact additions and deletions, as well as their exact locations, have not been provided to the Court. Because the Court is not able to ascertain at this time what changes would be made and how they might prejudice Defendant/Cross-Complainant, it is appropriate to deny without prejudice the Motion.

Although not relevant to the Court’s decision today, the Court notes that trial is scheduled in ten weeks.  It is possible that the filing of a First Amended Complaint might delay the trial.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.