Motion to amend the answer
2025CUOE038599: DULCE SOFIA GONZALEZ FLORES vs DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC., et al. 08/06/2026 in Department 44 Motion to amend the answer
Department Rules. Parties and counsel shall follow the Department 44 rules and Zoom protocols, available at https://www2.ventura.courts.ca.gov/Courtroom/C44.
Remote Appearances. The Court allows Zoom appearances as a courtesy to parties and counsel. The Court does not accommodate Court Call appearances. You MUST register by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your hearing or you will be DENIED entry to the hearing:
ZOOM Registration Link:
https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/meeting/register/iqN7uhQSQMuOqs-9TQXgEQ
No advance notice is required to appear in person.
Tentative Rulings. Oral argument should address the tentative decision. To submit on the tentative decision, email courtroom44@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the hearing date, copying all other parties, Use the subject line SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE, [Case Number], [Case Title] and [Party]. If not all parties submit, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling may change.
The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.
Motion: Defendants Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer
Tentative Ruling:
The Court previously continued this matter when it came on for hearing on July 13, 2026, to August 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. for Defendant to comply with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324(a). Defendant shall filed compliant papers on or before July 28, 2026.
Defendant did not file any papers, nor lodge the proposed amended pleading with the Court. Accordingly, Defendants motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Courts have discretion to allow amendments to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)). A courts discretion should usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Nestle v Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939
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?”
2025CUOE038599: DULCE SOFIA GONZALEZ FLORES vs DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC., et al.
Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428] [leave amended after sustaining of demurrer].)
Here, Defendant has shown good cause under Rule 3.1324(b) to add an affirmative defense with the information contained in the Declaration of Sean B. Gibbons. Plaintiff initially opposed Defendants request because Defendant sought to amend with an ex parte application. To the extent Plaintiff would have been prejudiced by the Court granting the requested relief on an ex parte basis, that harm was ameliorated by the Courts order setting this matter for hearing with notice. Defendants moving papers are still, however, deficient in that they do not include a copy of the proposed amendments as required by subsection (a) of the Rule. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED, for Defendant lack of compliance with Rule 3.1324, and Local Rule 4.07.
Defendant shall give notice.
2