Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00381, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00381    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: SEC

DICKINSON, et al. v. NGUYEN, et al.

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00381

HEARING:  8/30/22 @ 9:30 AM

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Nguyen and Lieu’s motion for leave to file amended answer is GRANTED.  Defendants are ordered to immediately file and serve the amended answer.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Nguyen and Lieu move for leave to file an amended answer pursuant to CCP § 426.50.

“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.”  (CCP § 426.50.) 

Plaintiffs’ procedural objections are denied.  Although the cited authority does not apply to Answers, CCP § 473 allows leave to amend pleadings. 

Plaintiffs also object because the motion seeks leave to assert the statute of limitations, but the proposed Answer misleadingly includes other defenses.  Although Defendants’ motion does seek leave to assert “primarily” the Statute of Limitations defense, the proposed First Amended Answer included all other affirmative defenses.  In the interest of judicial efficiency, the court will overlook the transgression.  However, Defendants are admonished and reminded of their duty of candor to the court.

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) 

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  Defendants are ordered to immediately file and serve the First Amended Answer.