Defendants Shujuan Wu and Huanhua Li’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
JULY 22, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR Judge NICOLE S. HEALY, DEPARTMENT 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 4 24-CIV-05754 CHRISTINE A. HALL, ET AL. VS. SHUJUAN WU, ET AL.
CHRISTINE A. HALL JEFFREY R. WINDSOR SHUJUAN WU RUOCHEN LIU
Defendants Shujuan Wu and Huanhua Li’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Shujuan Wu’s and Huanhu Li’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended answer to the complaint filed by plaintiffs Christine A. and Francis C. Hall on September 16, 2024, is GRANTED.
Defendants shall file their amended answer within ten (10) days of notice of entry of the formal order.
A.
Background
Plaintiffs brought their complaint on September 16, 2024. Defendants filed their answer on November 18, 2024, and a cross-complaint on November 25, 2024.
Defendants bring the instant motion to amend their answer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 on the basis of allegedly newly discovered facts and evidence which defendants contend impact the viability of plaintiff’s title as well as generally in the interests of justice. Defendants submit a copy of the proposed amended answer appended to the instant motion as Exhibit 1. The motion is unopposed.
In future, the court directs the parties to submit any proposed amended pleading by way of a redlined version of the proposed revisions, rather than as a narrative included in a declaration of counsel.
B.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 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 proceeding. [Citations omitted.] In particular, liberality should be displayed in allowing amendments to answers, for a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense. (Citations omitted).” (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159
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?”
JULY 22, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR Judge NICOLE S. HEALY, DEPARTMENT 28 ________________________________________________________________________ liberal in allowing an amendment to a pleading when it does not seriously impair the rights of the opposite party, and particularly an amendment to an answer. A defendant can generally set up as many defenses as he may have.” (Gould v. Stafford (1894) 101 Cal. 32, 34.)
C.
Discussion
Here, counsel’s declaration states that defendants’ previous lawyer ran out of time when preparing the answer and did not have sufficient knowledge of all the facts. (Declaration of Ruochen Liu, filed on March 12, 2026, ¶ 2.) “Defendants’ new counsel discovered the information needed to fulfill the emptiness of the prior answer” and “defendants would be severely prejudiced and suffer irreparable harm” were the court not to allow the amendment. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion and asserted that they would be prejudiced by amendment. Given the California courts long-standing policy of liberality regarding such motions, defendants’ motion to amend the answer is GRANTED.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendants’ counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.