Motion for Leave to Amend
5 Truong vs. Bass Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff Hien T. Ngoc Truong’s Motion for Leave to 30-2024-01425634 File the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Tracey Truong Nguyen’s Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Plaintiff Hien T. Ngoc Troung is ORDERED, within 10 days of this order, to file and serve the First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion, except that Tracey Truong Nguyen shall be removed as a Plaintiff.
Pending Motion
Plaintiffs Hien T. Ngoc Truong and Tracey Truong Nguyen move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
Standard for Leave to Amend (Upon Motion of a Party)
The Civil Procedure Code provides that:
The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The 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.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)
Leave to amend should be granted liberally at all stages of the proceedings in order to accomplish substantial justice for both parties and to resolve cases on their merits. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489; IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.)
As the Court of Appeal has explained:
[T]rial courts should be guided by two general principles: (1) whether facts or legal theories are being changed and (2) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. Frequently, each principle represents a different side of the same coin: If new facts are being alleged, prejudice may easily result because of the inability of the other party to investigate the validity of the factual allegations while engaged in trial or to call rebuttal witnesses. If the same set of facts supports merely a different theory – for example, an easement as opposed to a fee – no prejudice can result.
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?”
With respect to the first requirement, “[t]he basic rule applicable to amendments to conform to proof is that the amended pleading must be based upon the same general set of facts as those upon which the cause of action or defense as originally pleaded was grounded.” (Union Bank v. Wendland (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 393, 400-401.) In other words, “[t]he power to permit amendments is interpreted very liberally as long as the plaintiff does not attempt to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” (Herrera v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 255, 259.)
With respect to the second requirement, prejudice that may support denying amendment includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)
The trial court has wide discretion in determining whether to allow amendment, but “the appropriate exercise of that discretion requires the trial court to consider a number of factors: ‘including the conduct of the moving party and the belated presentation of the amendment.’” (Leader v. Health Ind. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613, quoting Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 135-136, italics original.)
However, 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. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; see also Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [”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 . . . .”], citations and quotations omitted.)
It is also an abuse of discretion to refuse amendment where that “results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense.” (Morgan v. Superior Court, supra, 172 Cal.App.2d at p. 530.) This is true even if leave to amend is sought as late as the time of trial or even during trial. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565; Rainer v. Community Memorial Hosp. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 251-256.) Thus, “[i]n the furtherance of justice, trial courts may allow amendments to pleadings and if necessary, postpone trial.” (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 965.)
Pursuant California Rules of Court rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading shall: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)
In addition, California Rules of Court rule 3.132 requires that a separate declaration accompany the motion and 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)
Here, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to streamline causes of action and to conform factual allegations to evidence discovered during discovery.
Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment does not appear to add claims or expand the general set of facts upon which the original Complaint was based.
In addition, Plaintiffs have substantially complied with the requirements for leave to amend under Rule 3.1324.
Further, Defendants have failed to file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion. Thus, Defendants have waived any arguments regarding the motion. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 [failure to address or oppose issue in motion constitutes waiver of that issue]; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [holding that failure to challenge contention in brief results in the concession on that issue].)
However, Plaintiff Tracey Truong Nguyen, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Hien T. Ngoc Truong, has been dismissed from this action. (See ROA #32.)
To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint in order to reinstate Tracey Truong Nguyen as a plaintiff, Plaintiffs have not stated this in their motion nor have they explained why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
Therefore, the court will deny the motion to extent it seeks to add in Tracey Truong Ngueyn as a plaintiff and grant the motion in all other respects.
Plaintiff Hien T. Ngoc Truong shall give notice of this ruling.
6 Skillset Group, LLC vs. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order Samuel Hale, LLC to Show Cause
Plaintiffs Skillset Group, LLC and Skillset Group, 30-2026-01542587 Inc.’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction