Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2022-01264111 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01264111, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ (Eleazar Haeun Lee and Wan Pyo Lee) Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (Motion), filed on 4-6-23 under ROA No. 35, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), states in part, “. . . 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; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states, “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 24, 41-42 (Royal) , 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.)

“Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted [citation], provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. [Citation.]” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

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.)

Defendants seek leave to amend to assert affirmative defenses. (Notice of Motion; 2:1-6:7.) Plaintiff’s (Debbie Mitchell) Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (Opposition), filed on 8-15-23 under ROA No. 42, responds, “Despite this, Defendant wishes to amend their General Denial to Complaint in order to allege specific denials to Plaintiff’s allegations that are unsupported, and in fact contradicted, by facts in evidence. Therefore, justice would not be furthered in allowing Defendants to so amend their General Denial to Complaint. Defendant’s proposed Amendments to the General Denial to Complaint adds unjustified legal theories and defenses and prejudices Plaintiff in that said Amendments require additional burdens of proof and/or persuasion be met by Plaintiff as to specific issues presented therein. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have admitted liability so the affirmative defenses are inapplicable. While Plaintiffs seem to have a point as to the merits of some of the affirmative defenses, Defendants should still be allowed to assert the defenses to avoid waiver. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated prejudice from the amendment because the motion was filed more than six months before trial and Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to conduct discovery as to the defenses.” (Opposition; 3:16-21.)

The declaration in support of the Motion substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). (LaScola Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8.) Defendants attached a copy of the proposed First Amended Answer. (LaScola Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit A.)

Although Plaintiff’s Opposition may demonstrate that the evidence may not support the alleged affirmative defenses requested by the Motion, the Opposition does not sufficiently show prejudice. The Opposition does not demonstrate that there will be a delay in trial, the loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Runia Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, and 7.)

Given the liberal policy regarding amendments, the court GRANTS Defendants’ (Eleazar Haeun Lee and Wan Pyo Lee) Motion for Leave to Amend Answer filed on 4-6-23 under ROA No. 35. The court ORDERS Defendants to filed the Answer to Complaint, attached as the Proposed Answer to Complaint (Lascola Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit A), no later than 9-1-23.

Defendants are to give notice.