Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff to give notice.
9 Dong vs. Bivens Motion for Leave to Amend (re First Amended Complaint)
The court GRANTS Plaintiff PHIL DONG’s unopposed motion for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC).
Plaintiff appears to have complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. (See Travieso Decl., ¶¶ 5-10, Exhs. 1-2.)
The Proposed FAC deletes the “loss of use of real property” claim, adds a quiet title cause of action, deletes references to the dismissed Defendant California Association of Realtors, adds allegations explaining the role of each defendant in the transaction; and specifies against which defendant(s) each cause of action is pled. (See Travieso Decl., Exh. 2.)
The court finds Plaintiff’s proposed FAC promotes resolution of the full dispute between the parties and clarifies the claims and allegations plead against each defendant.
No later than five (5) court days from the hearing, Plaintiff Dong shall file and serve the Proposed FAC (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Travieso Declaration).
Plaintiff to give notice.
2. Upcoming CMC
In light of the above ruling, the court CONTINUES the scheduled 8/10/26 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.
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.” (
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?”
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)
17