Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BC527716, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC527716 Hearing Date: August 3, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint
Moving Party: Plaintiff
James Murtaugh, M.D. (“Murtaugh”)
Resp. Party: None
Plaintiff
James Murtaugh, M.D.’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
November 15, 2013, Plaintiff James Murtagh, M.D. filed a complaint against
Defendants Clark Baker and the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice,
Inc., alleging the following causes of action:
1.
Intentional
Interference with Contractual Relations
2.
Inducing Breach
of Contract
3.
Injunction
On
July 1, 2022, Murtaugh moved the Court for an order granting leave to file a
Fourth Amended Complaint. No opposition has been filed.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Legal Standard
The court may, in furtherance of
justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP §
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. (CCP § 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. (Ibid.)
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).)
B.
Discussion
The Court finds that the
instant motion:
·
Includes a copy
of the proposed and serially numbered Fourth Amended Complaint (Linke Decl., ¶
2, Ex. A.);
·
States what
allegations from the operative Third Amended Complaint are proposed to be
deleted, but not by page, paragraph, and line number (Motion, MPA, p. 4:2-14.);
·
States what
allegations from the operative Third Amended Complaint are proposed to be
added, but not by page, paragraph, and line number (Motion, MPA, p. 4:2-14.).
The Declaration of Derek
Linke, counsel of record for Dr. Murtaugh:
1.
States the effect
of the amendment (Linke Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.);
2.
States why the
amendment is necessary and proper (Linke Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8.);
3.
States when the
facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered (Linke Decl., ¶¶
9-17.);
4.
States the reason
why the request for amendment was not made earlier (Linke Decl., ¶¶ 9-17.).
III.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff
James Murtaugh, M.D.’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.