Ware Malcomb vs. Rogerson Capital

# Case Name Tentative 49 Ware Malcomb vs. Rogerson Capital

24-01440256 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

NO TENTATIVE RULING – Parties to appear on Zoom or in-person.

51 Robinson vs. Laguna Beach House

23-01317797 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Paul Robinson’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides that “the court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified: “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.” (Morgan v.

Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527.)

“Generally, leave to amend should be liberally granted. However, unwarranted delay justifies denial of leave to amend. [Citations.] And the liberal policy favoring leave to amend ‘applies “ ‘only “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] Prejudice exists where the proposed amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in added costs of preparation and increased discovery burdens. [Citation.]” (Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 728, 739.) Defendant Laguna Beach House (“Defendant Hotel”) contends Plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to file the proposed FAC is unwarranted.