Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV44145, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44145    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff James McLeary (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sea View Inn at the Beach, Incorporated, Hal Keasler, Jim Murphy, Branden Alonzo, and Vuong Nguyen (collectively, “Defendants”).

On March 10, 2022, Sea View Inn at the Beach, Incorporated, Hal Keasler, and Jim Murphy filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, alleging eight causes of action.   

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 13, 2021, alleging eleven causes of action.  

On March 10, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC.

Defendants now move for an order granting them leave to amend their answer to the FAC. Plaintiff opposes.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)  “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….”   (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Ibid.) Finally, “[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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b), emphasis added.)

Defendants seek to amend their answer to the FAC to: (1) add Labor Code sections 203(b) and 226 and Business and Professions Code section 17208 to the statute of limitations affirmative defense, (2) correct a grammatical error in the thirty-seventh affirmative defense, and (3) add a number of additional affirmative defenses. (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:9-20; Veeneman Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Defendants provide a copy of the proposed Amended Answer to First Amended Complaint, and a redline comparison of the proposed amended answer compared to the operative Answer. (Veeneman Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. B-C.)

However, Defendants’ counsel’s declaration in support of the motion does not discuss “[w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper,” “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered,” and “[t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).) As set forth above, the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) are mandatory.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is denied without prejudice.   

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  April 5, 2023                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court