Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On November 7, 2023, plaintiff Esperanza McCorkendale (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against defendants Joe Byron, Egg Heaven, LLC, and Does 1 through 50. The complaint sets forth seven causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Intentional Misrepresentation, (3) Common Counts, (4) Promissory Estoppel, (5) Specific Performance, (6) Unjust Enrichment, and (7) Violations of Labor Code. Plaintiff later dismissed her fifth cause of action against all parties, and dismissed the first and second causes of action as to Ramona Streit only. 

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming Ramona Streit as Doe 1. 

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint substituting the name of defendant Joe Byron as Joseph James Byron AKA Joe Byron. 

On February 13, 2024, Joseph James Byron AKA Joe Byron, Egg Heaven, LLC, and Ramona Streit (Doe 1) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Answer to the complaint. 

On June 17, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion seeking leave to file a First Amended Answer (“FAA”). 

Any opposition was due on or before September 6, 2024; none has been filed to date. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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.” 

“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.) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants aver they inadvertently failed to include an Affirmative Defense based on the Statute of Frauds. Defense counsel declares that Plaintiff’s counsel initially agreed to allow for the amendment, but later conditioned the agreement based on receipt of unrelated amended discovery responses. There being no opposition to the motion, and pursuant to the liberality exercised in favor of amendments, the Court will allow the proposed amendment. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a FAA is GRANTED.¿Defendants are ordered to file their proposed FAA within five (5) days of the date of this Order. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: September 19, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.