Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2018-01032732 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2018-01032732, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ (David McCune and Emerson McCune) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Motion), filed on 8-1-23 under ROA No. 554, is GRANTED.

Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 24, 41-42, states, “ ‘[Code of Civil Procedure] section 437 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. Ordinarily, courts should “exercise liberality” in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceedings. [Citations.] In particular, liberality should be displayed in allowing amendments to answers, for a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.’ [Citation.]” [¶] ‘[N]evertheless, whether such an amendment shall be allowed rests in the sound discretion of the court. [Citations.] And courts are much more critical of proposed amendments to answers when offered after long unexplained delay or on the eve of trial [citations], or where there is a lack of diligence, or there is prejudice to the other party [citation].’ Citation.]”

“It is well established that ‘California courts “have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” [Citation.] Indeed, “it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his [or her] pleading so that he [or she] may properly present his [or her] case.’ ” [Citation.]’ (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158, 263 Cal.Rptr. 473.) Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. [Citation.]” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. [Citation.] ‘However, “ ‘even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’ [Citation.’ A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown.’ [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 states in part, “(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 in Cal. Rules in Court, rule 3.1324.)

On 3-1-23 under ROA No. 427, Plaintiff (Daniel Oyas) filed an amended verified complaint as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s “Notice of Verified Complaint, with Good Cause for a Better Judicial Economy” (Verified Complaint). Defendants’ seek leave to file a verified answer to this Verified Complaint. (Motion; 4:22-25.)

The declaration in support of the Motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). (Nguyen Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, and 6.) Defendants attached a copy of the proposed First Amended Verified Answer. (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.)

Defendants seek leave to file a verified answer to the amended complaint, the text of which is included in the motion pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a). Defendants’ counsel submits the required declaration under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).

Although Defendants delayed in filing the Motion, the proposed First Amended Verified Answer consists of general denials and does not raise any new affirmative defenses when compared with Defendants’ Answer filed on 8-17-20 under ROA No. 83. Plaintiff’s Opposition (Opposition), filed on 8-10-23 under ROA No. 582, does not demonstrate prejudice by allowing the amendment.

Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendants’ (David McCune and Emerson McCune) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on 8-1-23 under ROA No. 554. The court ORDERS Defendants to electronically file the proposed First Amended Verified Answer (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A) without any changes, modifications, or alterations as the First Amended Verified Answer no later than 8-23-23.

Defendants are to give notice.