Motion for Leave (re First Amended Complaint)
noted in Graham, the enhancement may be eliminated if, as here, the lodestar rate is based on the present hourly rate rather than the lesser rate applicable when services were rendered. (Id.)
Plaintiffs to give notice.
5 Romero vs. South Motion for Leave (re First Amended Complaint) Coast Villas Homeowners The court GRANTS Plaintiffs JESUS ROMERO and Association JACQUELINE ROMERO’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.
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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) 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(a)(1).)
California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) Thus, leave to amend to more clearly state a plaintiff’s theories of liability should be liberally allowed. (Rainer v. Buena Community Memorial Hospital (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 253-254.) This liberality only applies so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564
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?”
“[I]t is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.’ [citation] 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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. [citation]” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [internal citations omitted].)
Plaintiffs contend that through discovery and the recent completion of Marco Gutierrez’s deposition, they have acquired information regarding the alleged wrongdoing perpetrated by Defendants and Marco Gutierrez’s son, Mark.
Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add Mark A. Gutierrez, individually and dba Mark’s Construction Repair, as a new defendant, and to add the following causes of action: fraud (concealment and intentional misrepresentation), financial elder abuse, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
The court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration and proposed pleading substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (See Kern Decl., ¶¶ 3-7, Exhs. A and B.)
In sum, the court grants the motion.
Plaintiffs SHALL separately file the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the Kern Declaration as Exhibit A within five days.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
6 Hawkins vs. Hyatt Motion for Leave (re Cross Complaint) Corporation The court GRANTS the unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint brought by Defendant HYATT
8