Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01892, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV01892 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: August 5, 2024
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01892
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Keese Hardgraves LLP
v. Marya Parente, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Keese Hargraves LLP
¿
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant,
Marya Parente (No Opposition)
¿¿¿ ¿¿¿
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
¿¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Complaint
¿¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the FAC as a stand-alone
document, rather than attachment to another pleading, within 10 days. The September 10, 2024 CMC will remain on
calendar
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff, Keese
Hargraves LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Marya Parente,
and DOES 1through 10. The complaint
alleges causes of action: (1) Common Counts; (2) Common Counts; and (3) Breach
of Contract.
Now, Plaintiff moves on a Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), essentially changing the 3rd
cause of action form one for breach or oral contract to one for breach of
written contract.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. To date, no opposition has been
filed.
II. ANALYSIS¿¿
A. Legal Standard
Leave to amend is permitted
under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The
policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so
strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be
justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great
liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be
applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . ..
[citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and
probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v.
Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)
A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also
comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule
3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what
allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence
was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made
earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered
amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that
would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect,
necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for
delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)
B. Discussion
Plaintiff
seeks leave to file her FAC to edit the factual allegations. Plaintiff notes
that the proposed amendment will change the third cause of action for breach of
oral contract and replace it with a new third cause of action for breach
of written contract. Plaintiff contends that it originally marked the
incorrect box. Further, in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule
3.1324, subds., (a) and (b), Plaintiff filed: (1) a copy of the proposed and
numbered amendment (Declaration of Charles N. Hargraves (“Hargraves Decl.”), ¶ 4,
Exhibit A); (2) details specifications by reference to pages and lines the
allegations that would be deleted and added (Hargraves Decl., ¶¶ 4-5); and (3)
specifies the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments, date of
discovery and reason for delay. (Hardgraves Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)
Here,
because Plaintiff has complied with the requirements on this motion and there
is no opposition on file, the Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For
the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File her First Amended
Complaint is GRANTED
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.