Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 19CHCV00848, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19CHCV00848    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-19-22

Case # 19CHCV00848

Trial Date: 3-20-23 c/f 7-11-22

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant, ADP Payroll Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Judgment Debtor/Cross-Complainant, Osmin’s Iron Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Answer to the Cross-Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Assignor State Compensation Insurance Fund provided workers compensation insurance to defendant Osmin’s Iron Inc. for the period October 4, 2017 to October 4, 2018, and October 4, 2018 through November 13, 2018. The policy premiums totaled $41,543.75. No portion of the policies were paid. State Compensation Insurance Fund assigned the debt to plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau for collection.

On October 22, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract, open book account, account stated, and reasonable value. Defendant answered on January 11, 2019. On January 10, 2020, Defendant answered. On January 14, 2020, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against ADP Payroll Services, Inc. for breach of contract, equitable indemnity, and contribution.

On October 7, 2020, the court entered a stipulated judgment on the complaint in favor of Creditor’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. and against Osmin’s Iron Inc. AKA Osmin’s Iron Work for $49,911.19. On April 12, 2021, the clerk entered a default on the cross-complaint in favor of ADP Payroll Services, Inc. On September 20, 2021, the parties stipulated to set aside the default on the cross-complaint. ADP Payroll Services, Inc. answered the cross-complaint on September 24, 2021.

RULING: Granted

Cross-Defendant, ADP Payroll Services, Inc. moves for leave to file a first amended answer to the cross-complaint of Osmin’s Iron Inc. AKA Osmin’s Iron Work. Cross-Defendant moves for leave in order to add affirmative defense for lack of legal capacity, due to the suspended corporate status of Osmin’s Iron Inc. AKA Osmin’s Iron Work.

Judgment Debtor/Cross-Complainant, Osmin’s Iron Inc. in a five court day/seven calendar day late “response” acknowledges receipt of the motion and submits “no opposition.”[1] The court electronic filing system shows no reply filed by the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

“(a)      Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(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.

(b)        Supporting declaration

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…” (emphasis added).

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (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 such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) The court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

The motion was filed on July 12, 2022, and comes after counsel discovered the suspended status of cross-complainant. [Declaration of Valerie Rojas.] Cross-Defendant denies any prejudice as a result of the motion itself. The suspension is due to the conduct of Cross-Complainant.

The court finds the motion is both diligent and proper. The court also finds no showing of prejudice as a result of the amendment. The motion is therefore granted. Moving party to file a separate copy of the first amended answer within 10 days of the order.

Motion for summary judgment reserved for October 27, 2022. March 20, 2023 trial date to stand.

Moving party to give notice.