Chavez v. Smaldino

(48) Tentative Ruling

Re: Chavez v. Smaldino Superior Court Case No. 24CECG04891

Hearing Date: June 25, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: By Plaintiff for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To grant plaintiff Jennah Chavez’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Plaintiff shall file their first amended complaint within 10 days of the date of service of this order.

Explanation:

“ ‘Code of Civil Procedure section 473, which gives the courts power to permit amendments in furtherance of justice, has received a very liberal interpretation by the courts of this state.... In spite of this policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it.... On the other hand, where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.’ [Citation.] ‘In the furtherance of justice, trial courts may allow amendments to pleadings and if necessary, postpone trial....

Motions to amend are appropriately granted as late as the first day of trial ... or even during trial ... if the defendant is alerted to the charges by the factual allegations, no matter how framed ... and the defendant will not be prejudiced.’ [Citation.]” (Rickley v. Goodfriend (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1159.)

“While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. And it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.’ If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, internal citations omitted.)