Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV12389, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12389    Hearing Date: October 17, 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 to add a cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 52.1, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, after evaluation of the evidence and caselaw relating to uniformed peace officers working for private entity. Plaintiff argues that Defendant will suffer no prejudice by the filing of the amended complaint. There is no change of facts and Defendant has had ample discovery regarding the facts.

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 counsel discovered recently that it has a cause of action under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. 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. 

Defendant has not filed an opposition to show it would be prejudiced by the amendment.

Accordingly, the Court 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 1 to the motion within 10 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.