Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01147823, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Dien Tran (In Pro Per) (“Plaintiff”) seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Plaintiff seeks leave to clarify certain allegations and to add two new causes of action to the pleading, a fourth cause of action for violations of Civil Code sections 3070 and 373 against Defendant Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc. (“DTS”) and a fifth cause of action for violations of certain Garden Grove Municipal Codes against Defendants DTS, Mr. C’s Tooing, and Beach Cities Towing (“BEACH”).

The Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  (C.C.P. section 473(a)(1).) The Court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Ibid.) Additionally, 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. (C.C.P. section 576.)

California courts generally exercise their discretion liberally to permit the amendment of pleadings at all stages of the proceeding in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) This liberality only applies so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.) Leave to amend can be denied if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Sup.Ct. (Vickers) (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

“[T]he trial court has wide discretion in determining whether to allow the amendment, but the appropriate exercise of that discretion requires the trial court to consider a number of factors: ‘including the conduct of the moving party and the belated presentation of the amendment. [Citation.] . . . The law is well settled that a long deferred presentation of the proposed amendment without a showing of excuse for the delay is itself a significant factor to uphold the trial court’s denial of the amendment. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘The law is also clear that even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.)

In addition, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:  (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; (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. (California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 3.1324(a).) Moreover, 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(b).) 

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion complies with CRC, Rule 3.1324(a) as the Motion includes a copy of the proposed TAC as Exhibit A; states that no allegations from the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) are being deleted; and states what allegations are being added and where these additions occur in the TAC. (See Motion, pp. 1-2, Exh. A.)

The Declaration of Dien Tran filed in support of the Motion also specifies the effect of the amendment; states why the amendments are necessary and proper; and states when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered. (See Tran Decl., ¶¶ 1-4.)

Defendants Dedicated Transportation Services, Inc. and Mr. C’s Towing, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the Motion solely on the grounds Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend the complaint since this Motion was filed some 18 months after the filing of the initial Complaint. Defendants, however, do not contend that they will be prejudiced if the Motion is granted.

Here, although this Motion was filed on August 29, 2022, Plaintiff informed the Court and the parties that she intended to seek leave to file the TAC on her Case Management Statement filed on June 6, 2022 and filed a copy of the proposed TAC also on June 6, 2022. (See ROA 216 and 218.) The Motion was also filed approximately only one year after the filing of the SAC. (See ROA 96.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered in March 2022 just prior to the June 2022 Case Management Conference. (See Tran Decl., ¶¶ 3 and 4.) As such, the Court does not find that Plaintiff unduly delayed in bringing this Motion.

The Court GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS Plaintiff to file and serve the proposed TAC within the next 7-calendar days. (See Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [“‘[I]t is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case. If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend.’”].)

Moving Party is to give notice.