Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01155749, Date: 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Gerry W. Darter and Mary E. Darter (“Plaintiffs”) move for leave to file a second amended complaint on the grounds that the proposed amended pleading clarifies and presents concise arguments which will likely result in productive litigation resolution and streamline the legal and factual issues.

“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(a)(1).)  “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”  (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration states that the second amended complaint will downsize the number of named defendants and causes of action asserted based upon further investigation of the viability of the claims.  The proposed second amended complaint has been separately filed.  (ROA 147.)  The proposed second amended complaint includes Defendants Jenne Aguirre, Luis A. Castro, Jr., Meghan Shigo, an individual and as a real estate listing agent for Century 21 Award, and Century 21 Award, and deletes the causes of action for Tortious Interference with Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Civil Conspiracy per Civil Code section 3600 et seq.; Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage; and Intentional Interference with Contract.  Seven of the named Defendants in the First Amended Complaint are excluded from the proposed second amended complaint.

Though the Motion and counsel’s declaration do not strictly comply with the California Rules of Court requirements, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have substantially complied, given that the effect of the amendment, the allegations to be deleted, the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier, and why the amendment is necessary and proper are evident on the face of the proposed second amended complaint. 

Further, counsel’s declaration explains that the need for amendment was discovered upon further investigation of the facts of this action and viability of the claims asserted.  The Court notes that no trial date is currently set and that there will be no prejudice to any Defendant upon the granting of this Motion.

In light of the above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs to file and serve their amended pleading within 10 days. 

The case management conference is continued to 10/5/2023 at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiffs to give notice.