Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff to give notice.
10 Gill vs. Estate of Motion for Leave to Amend (re First Amended Complaint) Joan M. Gray
1. Motion for Leave
The court GRANTS Plaintiff POLLYANN M. GILL’s unopposed motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
Generally, leave to amend should be liberally granted. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “[I]t is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case. If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted].)
Plaintiff appears to have complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 governing a motion for leave to amend.
Plaintiff seeks leave to add a cause of action for battery and to seek punitive damages (among other forms of relief) in connection with that cause of action for battery. (Niven Decl., Exh. 2.)
If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case, even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 CA3d 558, 564-565)
Defendant did not oppose the motion. As Plaintiff has complied with Rule 3.1324 and has met the requirements for seeking leave to amend, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint within 5 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff to give notice.
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?”
The action is still not at-issue. As such, the court CONTINUES the scheduled 8/24/26 Case Management Conference to 11/30/26, at 10:00 am in Dept. W8. All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a timely case management statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.
Plaintiff to give notice.
11 Scott vs. Innovative Motion to Dismiss Stakeholder and Request for Attorney’s Pain Treatment Fees and Costs Solutions, LLC (Case Management Conference)
1. Motion to Dismiss etc.
Plaintiff KYLE SCOTT filed this interpleader action and now moves for an order: (1) dismissing Plaintiff as stakeholder, (2) awarding $3,174.70 in costs and $8,875.00 in attorney’s fees, and (3) permitting deposit of the remaining interpleaded funds of $14,818.22 regarding Defendant BAHIYA SIGAFOES and $3,728.80 regarding Defendant CHERRY ANTOINE with the court.
On 5/15/26, the pending motion was continued to 7/31/26 because service on Defendant F&M RADIOLOGY MEDICAL CENTER (“F&M”) apparently occurred on 4/22/26, and a response deadline had not yet expired. The proof of service also failed to establish that F&M had been served with the
18