Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00343, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV00343    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Jesus Del Rio’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Jesus Del Rio’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED and the Proposed Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of this date.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from a loan agreement. On June 18, 2021, Plaintiff Jesus Del Rio entered into a written agreement with Defendant Eliborio Ramirez Cruz in which Plaintiff agreed to lend $30,000 to Defendant with a monthly interest rate of 8%. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the agreement by failing to make agreed upon payments.

On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging breach of contract. On November 17, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against the same Defendant, alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) common counts, and (3) fraud.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion, case management conference and OSC re: Default/Default Judgment is set for April 25.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that alleges Defendant breached a second loan agreement. For the following reasons, the court will permit the amended pleading.

Legal Standard

“A 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, subd. (a)(1).) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “A motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate 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 [s]tate 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.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The declaration must also specify the amendment’s effect, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts supporting the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

If the party seeking the amendment has needlessly delayed, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s counsel provides that the effect of the amendment is to add allegations involving a second promissory note that the FAC failed to mention. (Borthwick Decl., ¶ 3-7.) The SAC will also allege increased total damages of $89,827.40. (Borthwick Decl., ¶ 7.) While the SAC increases damages and adds allegations involving a second promissory note, the court finds Defendant is not prejudiced given (1) trial has yet to be set, (2) Defendant has just appeared in this action on February 9, 2023, and (3) the court has not received any timely opposition from Defendant. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a SAC is GRANTED. The proposed SAC attached as Exhibit A to declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is deemed filed as of this date.