DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV145867·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoThe court is inclined to grant the motion

GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al.

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGOODLEY
DefendantAECOM
DefendantBaxter Healthcare
DefendantBaxter International, Inc.

Ruling

25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Answer in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2026 Patrick McKinney

PARTIES TO APPEAR.

Defendant Baxter Healthcare (“Defendant”) seeks to amend its answer, filed on March 10, 2026, in order to correct the name of the entity being sued from Baxter Healthcare Corporation to Baxter International, Inc., erroneously sued as Baxter Healthcare. Baxter International, Inc. was separately named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Defendant contends in reply that this separate entity answered the FAC on June 25, 2026.

The court is inclined to grant the motion based on the courts’ longstanding policy of liberally granting leave to amend pleadings, but it appears that the amended party name is identical to the named party in the June 25, 2026 answer, which was also filed by “Baxter International, Inc., erroneously sued as Baxter Healthcare.”

Defendant should be prepared to clarify why two answers from apparently identically named defendants is warranted.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share