Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20PSCV00862, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20PSCV00862    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: K

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Honghua Shang’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer is GRANTED.

Background   

Plaintiff Weiqing Xu (“Xu”) alleges as follows:

On September 2, 2015, Honghua Shang (erroneously sued as Hongshua Shang) (“Shang”) and EChain, Inc. dba E-Chain Realty (“Echain”) (collectively, “Defendants”) induced Xu to sign two separate Power of Attorney documents. Xu also loaned Defendants $75,000.00 (i.e., $30,000.00 on or around June 1, 2015 and $45,000.00 on or around September 6, 2015). Although Defendants issued Xu a check for $5,000.00 on or around October 1, 2017, no further payments have been made.

On December 14, 2020, Xu filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Open Book Account

3.                  Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation

4.                  Fraud—Promise without Intent to Perform

5.                  Conversion

On February 18, 2021, Shang filed a cross-complaint, asserting a cause of action against Xu and Roes 1-50 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

On June 23, 2023, Echain’s default was entered.

A Status Conference Re: Trial Setting is set for April 2, 2024.

Legal Standard

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); and see § 576 [“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”].)

“[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading.” (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135.) “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [quotation marks and citation omitted].) “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Id. [quotation marks and citation omitted].) With that said, “the failure of a proposed amendment to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense may support an order denying a motion to amend.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280, disapproved of on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4^th 390)

Courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, when no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 739, 761.) However, “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial. . . denial may rest upon the element of lack of diligence in offering the amendment after knowledge of the facts, or the effect of the delay on the adverse party.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 940.)

Also, “[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 (“CRC”), rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

Additionally, “[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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Shang moves the court for leave to amend his answer; more specifically, Shang wishes to amend his second affirmative defense (i.e., statute of limitations) to confirm with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 458[1].

Shang’s motion reflects compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a) and (b); accordingly, the motion is granted.