ESTHER SOLORZANO VS. MAVENFORM, INC. DBA PATHRISE ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, March 10, 2026, Line 4.

Plaintiff Esther Solorzano's unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

"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 Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1).)

"[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments." (Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230.) "Great liberality is indulged in matters of amendment to the end that lawsuits may be determined upon their merits." (Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 751.) "It is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.'" (Id.) "[I]t 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.)

Leave to amend, however, is properly denied where the plaintiff has delayed in seeking the amendment and the delay has prejudiced the defendant. (A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1068; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739; see also Kittredge, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048 ["[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment."].)"

Plaintiff has established a basis for amending her complaint and the record does not demonstrate unreasonable delay in seeking leave to amend. Good cause appearing, the court grants Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, substantially identical to the proposed SAC attached to the instant motion. Plaintiff must file the Second Amended Complaint within ten court days of this order.

Prior to the time set for hearing, Moving Party shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order containing the above text verbatim.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court