Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2020-01172379, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Aurora Solutions, LLC’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is GRANTED. 

The Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a) states:

(a)(1) 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 … the name of any party.  . . . 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. . . .

The court has broad discretion to grant leave to amend under CCP 473(a)(1), and there is a strong policy favoring liberal granting of amendments.  (Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)  This policy is so strong that denial is error, “[i]f the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party …”  (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 278.)

Generally, absent prejudice, delay alone is not sufficient grounds to deny the motion.  (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)  Defendant Burrell asserts that the FAC “will result in unfair delays to the trial deadline and unwarranted added costs.”  (Opp. p.5)  Other than these words, the opposition says nothing else of prejudice.  Defendant does complain that plaintiff has engaged in inordinate delay, which is addressed below.

The parties dispute when the facts giving rise to the FAC were first discovered.  A motion for leave to amend must be made promptly on discovery of the need to amend. See Record v Reason (1999) 73 CA4th 472, 486–487.  Here, plaintiff has produced evidence that although plaintiff knew the identities of the two proposed additional defendants, it did not realize the part those defendants played in the action here until recently.  See Edwards declaration, paragraphs 28-29 (ROA #285.)  For purposes of CCP 473, the court finds plaintiff acted without undue delay in seeking leave to file the FAC.

Defendant does argue that the court should analyze whether the newly-asserted claims will survive.  “Ordinarily, the judge will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend … After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading.”  (Weil & Brown, Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 6-E, Section 6:644, citing Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) 

The motion was timely filed and the proposed pleading will not significantly prejudice any party.

As the proposed pleading is attached as an exhibit to this motion, plaintiff shall electronically file a copy with the clerk for the court’s record within three days. 

Plaintiff is ordered to serve the FAC on all parties.

Plaintiff shall give notice.