Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case Number: 21STCV44769, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV44769, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44769 Hearing Date: September 21, 2023 Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿473, subdivision¿(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party¿to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿¿(Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿¿(See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿

Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” [Citation.]’ ”]; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d, 486, 490.) Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Under¿California Rules of Court¿Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state 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 (3) state 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.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4)¿the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint as very recent discovery of new but related facts and circumstances give rise to additional causes action and damages. Plaintiff requests leave to add allegations that Don had agreed to pay for a storage locker to store most of Anna’s belongings until her return from her “temporary” stay in Estonia. In January 2023, however, Anna learned for the first time that Don had, at some time prior, relinquished the storage locker and had taken control of or disposed of her property, which is worth no less than $100,000. Anna noticed social media posts depicting Greta Park wearing Anna’s clothing and using other of Anna’s items, such as handbags, shoes and the like. Permitting leave will not prejudice Defendants in any way and will permit Anna to seek full compensation for all related conduct in one lawsuit. Moreover, there is sufficient time remaining before the April 20204 trial date to conduct investigation and discovery in facts and circumstances. Depositions have yet to be taken and therefore examinations of Plaintiff, Defendant Don Park and Defendant Greta Park concerning Plaintiff’s new allegations and claims may be conducted without altering any discovery schedule agreed to by the parties. Permitting leave will also further notions of judicial economy by avoiding multiple lawsuits, all arising out of related transactions and prevent the possibility of inconsistent judgements and ruling, should Anna be required to file a new action.

The Court finds Plaintiff has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324(a) by including a copy of the proposed amended complaint and indicating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. Plaintiff also generally explains that her counsel discovered recently new facts that give rise to new causes of action. The Court finds this is sufficient to explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why it was not made earlier.

Despite Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff delayed in amending the complaint, Defendant would also need to show that it was prejudiced by the amendment. Defendant has not explained how he would be prejudiced, other than generally arguing he will be. Moreover, Defendant’s arguments at the validity of the proposed amendment will not be considered at this time. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿¿(See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿ Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” [Citation.]’ ”]; Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 490.)

Moreover, Defendant’s argument relating to Plaintiff’s minor procedural defects are also unavailing.

Accordingly, the Court exercising its discretion liberally in favor of amendments, grants the motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the first amended complaint attached as Exhibit B to the motion within 10 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.