City of American Canyon vs. City of Vallejo

The facts giving rise to the proposed amendments arose during the course of

34-2022-00327471-CU-CO-GDS: City of American Canyon vs. City of Vallejo 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint in Department 16D

discovery in late 2024 and early 2025, and became clear to Vallejo in arguments made by American Canyon in its MSA (filed June 12, 2025) and in positions taken by American Canyon in opposition to Vallejo’s pending Motion to Compel (filed July 3, 2025) that the discovery at issue in Vallejo’s motion was irrelevant and outside the scope of Vallejo’s Cross-Complaint.

(Id., at ¶ 20.)

Vallejo also explains that:

In July 2025, the parties signaled an interest to “pause” the trial of this action so they could meaningfully engage in settlement discussions in the hope of negotiating a new water service agreement that would resolve this case and another case on appeal which both concern the 1996 Agreement. Prior to the parties’ agreement to engage in settlement discussions, [counsel for Vallejo] notified counsel for American Canyon of Vallejo’s intent to seek leave to amend its cross-claims. Among the conditions of agreeing to pause this litigation in lieu of settlement discussions, American Canyon agreed it would not oppose Vallejo’s request to amend on the grounds of timeless during the time period which the parties attempted in good faith to settle the litigation.

(Id., at ¶ 10.)

The settlement efforts were not successful and the parties have resumed preparing for trial, which as stated above is currently set for November 9, 2026. (Id., at ¶ 11.)

Vallejo argues that “the proposed amendments will not necessitate any added preparation costs” but that to the extent American Canyon argues “it is somehow prejudiced by the proposed amendments Vallejo is willing to stipulate to a continuance of the trial date to allow American Canyon ample time to investigate the clarified allegations if necessary.” (Id., at 14:20-25.)

American Canyon opposes, arguing that “the proposed amendments do not merely ‘clarify’ and ‘refine’ its prior allegations but impermissibly add to and expand its claims after significant and inexcusable delay.” (Opposition at 5:6-9.) American Canyon further argues that Vallejo unreasonably delayed filing this motion “and justice does not now warrant granting Vallejo leave to amend its Cross-Complaint to the prejudice of American Canyon.” (Id., at 5:14-16.) American Canyon also contends that this motion should be denied because Vallejo has failed to comply with the Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (Id., at 8:20-22.) Finally, American Canyon argues that this motion should be denied because Vallejo improperly seeks to add a new legal theory that is barred by the statute of limitations.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327471-CU-CO-GDS: City of American Canyon vs. City of Vallejo 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint in Department 16D

Discussion

Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; see also Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for leave to amend on eve of trial where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery...”].)

However, absent prejudice, delay alone is not a ground for denying a motion for leave to amend. If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)

Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [citing Higgins v. Del Faro, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at pp. 564-565].)

The Court recognizes that trial is currently set for November 2026. However, the Court disagrees that Vallejo has inexcusably delayed in making this motion. Rather, it appears that Vallejo’s delay in seeking leave is at least in part, due to the parties’ agreement to delay trial proceedings between July 2025 and May 2026 in order to pursue settlement. (See Marchini Decl., ¶ 10, Declaration of Alexis K. Stevens [“Stevens Decl”] Decl., ¶¶ 8-14.) Moreover, it appears that American Canyon has been on notice of Vallejo’s desire to amend its cross-complaint since July 2025—prior to the parties agreeing to pause litigation efforts. (Ibid.)

Moreover, American Canyon has failed to make a showing of prejudice. In this regard, American Canyon has submitted only one declaration in support of its opposition, the declaration of its counsel, Alexis K. Stevens. However, the declaration of Ms. Stevens fails to make any showing of prejudice but rather provides only a historical timeline of the case. As a result, American Canyon provides only arguments that it will be prejudiced if leave to amend is granted in its opposition to the motion “because it would be forced to undertake further discovery and investigation.” (Opposition at ¶ 18:24-25.)

First, arguments of counsel are not evidence. (Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 895, fn. 9 [“It is axiomatic that arguments of counsel are not evidence”].) Second, American Canyon has not shown with evidence, that additional discovery will need to be taken, additional costs will be incurred, new expert witnesses will need to be retained, or that trial will need to be continued.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327471-CU-CO-GDS: City of American Canyon vs. City of Vallejo 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint in Department 16D

The Court also rejects American Canyon’s contention in opposition that “Vallejo’s offer to stay trial, again, to resolve the resulting prejudice to American Canyon is hollow and self-serving, as the matter must be brought to trial by February 2027 to avoid mandatory dismissal by the Court, leaving little flexibility for American Canyon and the Court to accommodate further scheduling delays.” (Opposition at 5:16-19.) As stated above, Vallejo represents in its moving papers that is willing to stipulate to a continuance of the trial date to allow American Canyon ample time to investigate the clarified allegations if necessary.” (Moving MPA at 14:20-25.)

Indeed, as Vallejo argues in reply, Code of Civil Procedure section 583.330 provides that parties may extend the time within which the action must be brought to trial, either by stipulation or agreement in open court. Thus, the Court reject’s American Canyon’s contention that Vallejo’s offer is “hollow and self-serving” and that Vallejo’s offer to stipulate would not alleviate any assumed prejudice American Canyon would face.

Accordingly, the Court finds that American Canyon has failed to make any showing of prejudice.

The Court also rejects American Canyon’s argument that Vallejo failed to comply with Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 subdivision (b).

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a separate declaration that must specify:

(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.

The Court finds that the Marchini Declaration sufficiently satisfies these requirements. Specifically, Exhibit B to the Marchini Declaration, as well as paragraph 19 of the Marchini Declaration are sufficient to specify the effect of the amendment; paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Marchini Declaration specify that the amendment is necessary and proper in order to clarify the allegations and relief sought in order to full resolved the present dispute; paragraph 20 of the Marchini Declaration specifies that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered in late 2024 and 2025 and became more clear on June 12, 2025 and July 3, 2025; and that paragraph 10 specifies that the request for amendment was not made earlier because the parties agreed to pause litigation in July 2025 to pursue settlement discussions. (Marchini Decl., ¶¶ 10 18, 19, 20, Exhibit B.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00327471-CU-CO-GDS: City of American Canyon vs. City of Vallejo 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint in Department 16D

Moreover, the Court finds that Vallejo satisfied the requirements of Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 subdivision (a). While it is true “that a few edits are shown in Exhibit B to the Marchini Declaration in redline which were not included in the original Cross-Complaint on file with the court” (Reply at 4:7-9), these appear to minor typographical errors, which, as Vallejo argues, American Canyon is aware of and thus do not require denial of this motion on that basis. (Id., at ¶ 9-15.)

Finally, to the extent American Canyon argues that a new legal theory added by the proposed amendment is barred by the relevant statute of limitations, the Court will not rule upon the substance of such argument at this time. The validity of a proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins.

Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.]) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.) American Canyon is free to challenge the proposed first amended cross complaint by way of demurrer or other appropriate motion.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reason’s Vallejo’s the motion is GRANTED.

Vallejo shall file and serve its first amended cross complaint by no later than August 6, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)