Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 2020-01131251, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file the Third Amended Complaint as a separate document within ten calendar days of this Order. 

California courts allow great liberality at all stages of the proceeding in permitting the amendment of pleadings to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp. (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 451, 461.) Because the policy favoring amendment is so strong, “[i]t is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1428.) Plaintiffs are not changing the nature of this case, and the amendment adds to existing allegations regarding Defendant Rosalba Meza. The amendment would not result in any prejudice to Defendants. Thus, the proposed amendment is allowed. 

Plaintiffs to give notice.