Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV07688, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07688    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff Fortunato Barquero filed this action against Defendant Commercial Coating Company, Inc. dba Commercial Paving & Coating and others.

On March 21, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer.

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Defendant identifies the amendments to the answer and also provides a copy of the proposed amended answer.  (Ortiz Decl., Ex. 3.)  Defendant seeks to add an affirmative defense under CACI No. 4552, “Completed and Accepted Doctrine.”  (Ortiz Decl. ¶ 8.)  This amendment comes after the parties exchanged initial discovery in March 2021.  (Motion at p. 3; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant contends that without the amendment, it will potentially be deprived of asserting a meritorious defense.  (Motion at p. 4.)  The proposed amendment does not enlarge the factual scope of this case, and trial is not until February 17, 2026.

Plaintiff opposes the motion primarily based on Defendant’s delay and the merits of the defense.  However, the proposed amendment does not enlarge the factual scope of this case, and trial is not until February 17, 2026.  Additionally, the Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend.  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Because there is no showing of prejudice, the motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to file and serve the amended answer within ten days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 22nd day of April 2025