Motions for Leave to Amend Answers
absence and without an opportunity to present the co-defendant’s case. (Taliaferro v. Hays (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 235, 236). That DMX did not file an answer or respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint cannot be imputed on Gorovenko.
Indeed, this action is still currently pending against Defendant Gorovenko, who has filed an answer, actively participated in his own defense and has even asserted his own affirmative claims. No trier of fact has adjudicated Plaintiffs’ claims against Gorovenko or Gorovenko’s claims against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cannot circumvent litigation against Gorovenko by attempting to take advantage of the default judgment against DMX, with which Gorovenko was not personally involved.
To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to establish that Gorovenko is the alter ego of DMX, Plaintiffs may do so in this litigation, present the evidence to the trier of fact, and allow a trier of fact to determine that question of fact. The court finds that the summary procedures of amending a judgment, which relies on hearsay, no cross-examination, and without the benefit of allowing a trier of fact to carefully weigh and consider all of the evidence, particularly given that active litigation is still pending against Gorovenko, to be improper at this time.
The court declines to rule on Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections as unnecessary for the court’s determination on this motion.
The motion is, therefore, DENIED.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
6 Diyar Irvine, TENTATIVE RULING: LLC vs. Elzoheiry Motions for Leave to Amend Answers
Defendant Loan Funders, LLC, Defendant Athene Annuity and Life Company, and Defendant Andrew Abas move for leave to file a First Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Diyar Irvine, LLC, Green City Development, LLC, Sadek Elsewedy, and Ahmed Elsewedy. For the following reasons, the unopposed motions are GRANTED.
The Court may, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) Thus, leave to amend to more clearly state a plaintiff’s theories of liability should be liberally allowed. (Rainer v. Buena Community Memorial Hospital (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 253-254.) This liberality only applies so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)
Defendants seek leave to amend their Answers to the First Amended Complaint to delete the affirmative defenses of consent and justification and good faith, to add several new affirmative defenses, to add specific sections of the Code of Civil Procedure to their statute of limitations affirmative defense, and to add new factual allegations identified in discovery.
If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case, even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 CA3d 558, 564-565)
Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. As Defendants have complied with CRC 3.1324 and have met the requirements for seeking leave to amend, the motions are granted.
Defendants are ORDERED to file their Amended Answers within 5 days of this ruling.
Moving parties shall give notice of this ruling.
7 Hamidi vs. Mar TENTATIVE RULING: Ranch, LLC Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel of Record
The Law Office of Paul Mankin, APC moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Nataliia Zadorkina Hamidi. The motion is GRANTED. The order relieving counsel will be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the executed order upon all parties.
Moving counsel shall give notice of this ruling.