Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01250632, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Fayez Sedrak and O&C Hillside Resources Management Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs move pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a).  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, the court may allow a party to amend any pleading in furtherance of justice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).)  The Court’s power under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is discretionary.  (Ibid.) 

When a party seeks to amend a pleading, the motion to amend must include a copy of the proposed amendment, state the allegations to be deleted, and state allegations to be added.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)  Moreover, the moving party must submit a declaration that specifies: “(1) [t]he effect of the amendment; (2) [w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) [w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) [t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).) 

Courts liberally allow amendments to permit lawsuits to be determined on their merits.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Desney v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 751.)  Furthermore, a motion for leave to amend is proper and should be granted if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party.  (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Here, Plaintiffs do not strictly comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.  However, courts shall liberally allow amendments to permit lawsuits to be determined on their merits and therefore the court finds, in its discretion, that Plaintiffs provided sufficient information such that the motion appears timely and the effects of the amendment are clear. 

Plaintiffs filed their proposed First Amended Complaint in support of their Motion.  As discussed in the moving papers, the First Amended Complaint adds two causes of action: negligence and breach of fiduciary duties claims.  Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint will contain the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, and (3) breach of fiduciary duties.

The original complaint was a form complaint but the First Amended Complaint is not and contains more allegations, which appear to be more informative and specific than those contained in the original form Complaint. 

Plaintiff’s counsel states that the new facts were discovered after the original complaint was filed on March 21, 2022 but Counsel does not elaborate or provide any further specificity regarding when the facts where discovered, why the amendment is necessary or why the amendment was not made earlier.

The Motion is also unopposed and Defendant makes no argument why the amendment should not be permitted. 

In addition, the court finds that the amendment will not prejudice Defendant.

Pursuant to the liberal policies surrounding amendments and the court’s discretion, the Motion to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The proposed First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A shall be filed within 10 days of this ruling.

The Case Management Conference is continued to 10/12/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiffs to give notice.