Motion for Leave to Amend (re First Amended Complaint)
fn. 9 [“A declaration not signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of California has ‘no evidentiary value’ and can be disregarded.”].)
Moving Attorney to give notice.
4 Southern Income Motion for Leave to Amend (re First Amended Complaint) Properties, L.L.C. vs. Leisure Pro LTD Revised at 2:55 pm, 8/13/26.
The court GRANTS Plaintiff SOUTHERN INCOME PROPERTIES, LLC’s unopposed motion for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC).
According to the moving papers, Defendants (including the new proposed defendant, LP SCUBA, LLC) have stipulated to the filing of the proposed FAC and Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss an earlier filed unlawful detainer action (Southern lncome Properties, L.L.C. v. LP Scuba, L.L.C., Case No. 30- 2024-01425415-CU-UD-CJC), as possession is no longer an issue. The FAC would essentially result in consolidation of related issues into one case.
Plaintiff has substantially complied with the procedural requirements for leave to amend under Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court.
In sum, the court GRANTS the unopposed motion.
Plaintiff may file the proposed First Amended Complaint (attached as Exhibit 1 to Janecek Declaration) no later than five court days from the date of this hearing.
Trial date of 2/22/27 to remain.
Plaintiff to give notice.
5 Gill vs. Estate of Motion for Leave to Amend (re First Amended Complaint) Joan M. Gray
The matter was continued from 7/31/26. The court has now considered the timely-filed opposing and reply papers (ROAs 120 and 125).
The court GRANTS Plaintiff POLLYANN M. GILL’s motion for leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Generally, leave to amend should be liberally granted. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “[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. 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.” (
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, Plaintiff seeks leave to add a fourth cause of action for battery against Defendant HAYDEN GRAY (and Doe Defendants) and add a request for punitive damages (among other forms of relief) in connection with the battery cause of action (Niven Decl., Exh. 2.)
If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments usually prevails. Indeed, it could be an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case, even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565)
In their opposing papers, Defendants ESTATE OF JOAN M. GRAY, Deceased and HAYDEN GRAY first argue that the motion should be summarily denied because Plaintiff failed to meet with the statutory requirements of Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. Rule 3.1324 requires that the moving party proffer a supporting declaration stating (1) the effect of the amendment, (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper, (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and (4) the reasons
why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)
Here, Plaintiff proffers a declaration from counsel (Leslie L. Niven) and while the declaration does not clearly address each specific requirement of Rule 3.1324(b), the court finds the declaration substantially complies with Rule 3.1324(b). Moreover, denial of the motion does not appear justified even if a technical defect exists as argued.
Defendants also argue that the motion should be denied because the FAC does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for battery or support a claim for punitive damages. But as Plaintiff notes, such arguments are more properly addressed by way of a demurrer and/or motion to strike.
Finally, Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced by the filing of the FAC because they will be forced to incur additional expenses in filing a demurrer and/or motion to strike. But “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280.)
In sum, the motion for leave is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may separately file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint within 5 court days of this ruling.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Upcoming CMC:
In light of the above-ruling and that the case may no longer be at-issue, the court CONTINUES the Case Management from 8/24/26 to 12/7/26, at 10:00 am in Dept. W8.
All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a new and timely case management conference statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by