Ramirez vs. Goering

Plaintiff Andrew Ramirez’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint is granted.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” While this discretion will generally be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings, the court acts within its discretion to deny an amendment where there has been a long delay in seeking the amendment and allowing the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing side. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend shall include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, identify by page, paragraph, and line number any additions to and deletions from the prior pleading (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)), and a supporting declaration that specifies: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

The Court finds Plaintiff has substantially complied with Rule 3.1324. The motion is supported by a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, and includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading. Plaintiff seeks to clarify “that certain claims are asserted on behalf of the corporation as opposed to Plaintiff, a 50% shareholder.” The Court finds it is in the furtherance of justice to allow the filing of the proposed amended complaint. (See Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530