Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2021-01201320, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is granted.  Plaintiff must file her First Amended Complaint as a separate document within one week.

Plaintiff seeks to file a First Amended Complaint to correct what she calls a substantive mistake in the original Complaint, that her 15 U.S.C. §1671e(b) claim should be alleged as a class claim rather than an individual claim.  Plaintiff also seeks to remove the redundant third cause of action, which is identical to the second cause of action.

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, “It 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.

Plaintiff is not changing the fundamental nature of this case, and her new allegations and claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts.  All of plaintiff’s proposed new allegations and claims appear to be based on the same overall transaction and course of events.  The amendment would not result in any undue prejudice to defendant, because the new allegations are closely related to plaintiff’s prior allegations and no trial date has been set.  Defendant’s Answer was only recently filed on July 7, 2022, and neither party has propounded any discovery.  Defendant’s arguments as to the merits of the new claims may be raised through a demurrer, motion to strike, motion for summary judgment, or other appropriate motion, which is consistent with the preferred practice to permit an amendment subject to a later motion.  Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1048.  Thus, the proposed amendment will be allowed.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.