Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00041470-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00041470-CU-BC-CTL EVO ENTERPRISES INC VS BULA DEVELOPMENTS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF EVO ENTERPRISES, INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT is GRANTED.

Plaintiff EVO ENTERPRISES, INC. ('Plaintiff') seeks leave to file an amended complaint that allegations regarding allegedly defamatory statements by Defendants BULA DEVELOPMENTS, LLC, CESAR MORA, NATASHA MORA ('Defendants'). The policy permitting amendment is strong, but amendment may be rejected where there is a showing of prejudice or unfair surprise. (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296–297.) '[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.' (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) 'Leave to amend is properly denied when the facts are undisputed and as a substantive matter no liability exists under the plaintiff's new theory.' (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746.) Failure to file any opposition to the motion indicates Defendants' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. (See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) As Defendants have failed to oppose the motion, Defendants have not demonstrated prejudice based on the proposed amendment nor that the amendments would fail as a substantive matter based on the undisputed facts. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2981245