Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
9:00 25CV457332 Ricardo Alvarez, et al. Order on Defendant General Motors 2 v. LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First General Motors, LLC, et al. Amended Complaint
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 25CV468458 AG7 Enterprises Order on Defendants’ Demurrer to 3 v. the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint The Evergreen Advantage, LLC, et al. See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 25CV480246 Homa Abbasnia Order on Defendants’ Petition to 4 v. Compel Arbitration and Stay this ALGT, LLC dba Woodlands Civil Action Healthcare Center, et al. See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 22CV403337 Laura L. Brown Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 5 v. to File an Amended Complaint Andrew S. Espino, et al. See Line 5 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
Line 5 Case Name: Laura L. Brown v. Andrew S. Espino, et al. Case No.: 22CV403337 Plaintiff Laura L. Brown moves under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(a)(1) leave to file an Amended Complaint. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:25-2:4 (filed: Dec. 17, 2025).
The Motion is made on the grounds that doing so will be in furtherance of justice, and that new facts and resulting new damage have come to light since the original Complaint was filed and answered, requiring amendment to accurately reflect the full scope of the Plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 2:2-8.
The Motion came on for hearing on August 5, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
As the strong policy of California law is to liberally permit amendment of pleadings so that disputes will be efficiently decided on their merits, when resolving a motion to amend a pleading it is the practice of this Court to liberally exercise its discretion to permit amendment. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 939; Mable v. Hyatt (1998) 81 Cal. App. 4th 581, 596
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?”
Here, no party opposed the Motion at all, let alone demonstrated that any prejudice would be wrought by this amendment. The Court views their failure to oppose this Motion as Defendants conceding this Motion. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.; California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 9:105.10, Ch. 9 at pp. 94-95 (failure to file opposition papers to motion is treated “as an admission that the motion is meritorious”) (Weil & Brown, The Rutter Group, 2025 Ed.); see also Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff Laura L. Brown is ORDERED to file her Amended Complaint within 15 days of today. All other parties in this action may answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in any manner allowed, and in the time allowed, by the Code of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 5, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
31