Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV15143, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15143    Hearing Date: December 20, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Damaria Green

Resp. Party:    Defendant Subaru of America, Inc.

The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted seven (7) days leave to file her proposed FAC.

BACKGROUND:

On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff Damaria Green filed her Complaint against Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. on cause of action arising from the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On July 31, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

On December 7, 2023, Defendant filed its Opposition to the Motion.

No reply or other response has been filed to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. 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 Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

        “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

“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 declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

“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.)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file her proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC). (Motion, p. 5:2–4.)

Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; and (2) that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff has failed to properly plead any of her proposed causes of action. (Opposition, pp. 4:2–3, 5:20–21.)

B.      California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324

Plaintiff substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

First, Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (Motion, Exh. B.)

Second, Plaintiff’s Counsel provided a declaration that discussed the two new causes of action and the allegations thereto that would be included in the proposed FAC. While it would have been more helpful had Plaintiff provided the Court with a red-lined version of the proposed amended pleading, this is substantial compliance. (Motion, Decl. Naderi, ¶ 4.)

Finally, Plaintiff’s Counsel declares: (1) that the effects of the proposed amendments are to add new causes of action; and (2) that the proposed amendments are necessary and proper to allege misrepresentations made by Defendant. It is not clear based on the declaration when the new allegations occurred or why they were not filed with the original complaint. (Motion, Decl. Naderi, ¶¶ 4–5.) While it would have been more helpful had Plaintiff’s Counsel explained all of these items clearly, this is substantial compliance.

C.      Prejudice

There does not appear to be a significant risk of prejudice to Defendant by allowing Plaintiff the leave to file the proposed amended pleading. This is because the new allegations and causes of action do appear to have some relationship to the existing allegations and causes of action. Also, trial is still seven months away.

In contrast, the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff of not having leave to amend is very high. This is because the proposed causes of action appear to be compulsory causes of action.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted seven (7) days leave to file her proposed FAC.