Zancanaro vs. Moore

10 Zancanaro vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Moore For the reasons set forth below, the unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend brought by Plaintiff Gina Zancanaro is GRANTED, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a).

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend, simply to correct the name of Defendant La Palma Woods Apartments, which Plaintiff has been informed is actually “De Anza Plaza Apartments, LLC dba La Palma Woods Apartments.” (Motion: 5:14-20 [ROA No. 38]; See also ¶4-¶6 of Sabbagh Declaration.)

The above amendment is simple and will not prejudice any party to this action. This is particularly true, given this action remains in its early stages and no Defendant has yet appeared.

Additionally, having now submitted a proposed amended pleading which is properly labelled as the second amended complaint, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a)(1). (¶9 of Sabbagh Declaration and Exhibit 2 thereto.)

Similarly, Plaintiff has identified the changes in the Complaint, the effect of the amendment, and when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered. (See Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b) and ¶4-¶7 of Sabbagh Declaration.) As noted above, Plaintiff has changed only the name of Defendant La Palma Woods Apartments, to correctly identify the legal entity doing business there as. (¶4-¶6 of Sabbah Declaration.)

The above fully complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court rule 3.1324.

“[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Ibid.) Additionally, “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.” (