Alma Lorena Hernandez v. The City of San Jose, et al.

9:00 24CV435404 Alma Lorena Hernandez Order on Defendant and Cross- 6 v. Complainant Oak Grove School The City of San Jose, et al. District’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint

See Line 6 below for complete tentative ruling.

After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.

9:00 24CV453662 Santos Medina Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 7 v. to File an Amended Complaint SF Green Construction Inc., et al. See Line 7 below for complete tentative ruling.

After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.

Line 6 Case Name: Alma Lorena Hernandez v. The City of San Jose, et al. Case No.: 24CV435404 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Oak Grove School District (“District” or “Cross- Complainant”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 473 and 576 for leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint against Sugumura Finney Architects, Inc. on the grounds that doing so is in the interests of justice. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 2:4-13 (filed: Dec. 18, 2025).

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. Indeed, unless a party opposing a motion to amend a pleading demonstrates that the amendment would cause them undue prejudice, “it is not only error but an abuse of discretion” for a trial court to refuse permission to amend. Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (Morgan) (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530.

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 all parties conceding this Motion. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728