Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01908, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01908    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Yin Chieh Chuang’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION (Due May 5, 2023)

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Yin Chieh Chuang’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Proposed Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of this date.

BACKGROUND

This is a collections action arising from a settlement agreement. On November 20, 2018, Plaintiff Yin Chieh Chuang entered into an agreement with Defendant Jay Hooper in which Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff a portion of a settlement distribution in the amount of $234,000 by December 31, 2021. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the agreement by only making a partial payment of $2,000 on June 2, 2020.

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant and Does 1-10, alleging breach of contract.

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against same defendants alleging the same cause of action.

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for May 18.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that provides the correct agreement as an exhibit and updates the allegations accordingly. For the following reasons, the court agrees.

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 motion provides that the effect of the amendment is to replace the agreement included in Exhibit A of the FAC with the correct exhibit. (Motion, p. 4:16-21.) The SAC will also adjust the damages requested and correct the agreement dates in accordance with the new exhibit. (Motion, p. 5:1-20.) While the agreement in the proposed SAC appears to provide different numbers than the agreement attached to the FAC, the court finds any prejudice to Defendant is minimal as trial has yet to be set and this action was only filed six months ago. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s motion is deemed filed as of this date.