Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 22NWCV00139 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00139, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00139 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: SEC

GGF PICO RIVERA, LLC v. ALI SHIRMOHAMMADI, et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00139

HEARING: 07/26/22

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Ali Shirmohammadi’s motion for leave to filed amended answer is GRANTED. CCP § 473(a) and 576.

Because the answer filed on May 6, 2022 mistakenly included defendants who are not represented by Defendant Ali’s counsel, that answer is deemed stricken. Defendant Ali is ordered to file his amended answer within five (5) court days of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

Plaintiff GGF Pico Rivera, LLC initiated this breach of rental contract action on March 1, 2022 against Defendants Ali Shirmohammadi dba as American Lock & Safe, Mahrokh Shahrabi, Hossein Shirmohammadi, Sajjad Shirmohammadi, Sina Shirmohammadi, American Lock and Safe Inc. and Does 1-20.

On May 6, 2022, Defendants Ali Shirmohammadi dba as American Lock & Safe, Mahrokh Shahrabi, Hossein Shirmohammadi, Sajjad Shirmohammadi, Sina Shirmohammadi, American Lock and Safe Inc. filed their answer.

On May 17, 2022, Defendant Ali Shirmohammadi (“Ali”) filed the instant motion for leave to amend. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “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.)

A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)

Analysis

Here, Defendant Ali moves for leave to amend his answer because Defendants Mahrokh Shahrabi, Hossein Shirmohammadi, Sajjad Shirmohammadi, Sina Shirmohammadi, American Lock and Safe Inc. were mistakenly included in the originally filed answer when they are not being represented by Defendant Ali’s counsel. (Motion at pg. 3; Khan Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)

Based on the instant motion and accompanying declaration, the Court finds that Defendant Ali has sufficiently complied with CRC, rule 1.324. (See generally Khan Decl. and Proposed First Amended Answer.) Because Defendant Ali represents that he and other named defendants have a conflicting interest, he would be prejudiced to share defense with them. Thus, it would be just to permit Defendant Ali to amend his answer.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant Ali’s motion for leave to amend. Because the answer filed on May 6, 2022 mistakenly included defendants who are not represented by Defendant Ali’s counsel, that answer is deemed stricken. Defendant Ali is ordered to file his amended answer within five (5) court days of this Order.