Motion To File Amended Complaint; Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
10. 26CV0341 RAINER ENDERS VS. MICHAEL WEISSMANN Motion To File Amended Complaint/Motion To Compel Further Responses To Special Interrogatories
Motion To File First Amended Complaint:
Plaintiff filed this Motion to file a First Amended Complaint on April 21, 2026.
Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a)(1) provides:
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. There is a general policy in this state of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings at
any stage of the litigation to allow cases to be decided on their merits. (Kittredge Sports Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) The rule of great liberality is particularly
important where an amendment is sought to an answer. (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218
Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159; Hyman v. Tarplee (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 805, 813-814.) “...it 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.’ (Citations omitted.) 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. (Citations omitted.)” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530
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?”
“...absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing
amendment of pleadings will prevail. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564, 176
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
Cal.Rptr. 704.)” (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University v. Superior Court (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)
The amendment is appropriate and does not prejudice the Defendant. The Motion For
Leave To File A First Amended Complaint is granted.
Motion to Compel:
The court having reviewed the motion and responses finds defects and inadequacies in
BOTH the questions and responses. Specifically, the questions identified in the separate
statement all reference to Paragraph 6 of the complaint. Paragraph 6 is the prayer for relief. As
such, the questions are either overbroad, nonsensical, or vague and confusing. However, the
responses to the extent the questions are discernable are also not adequate and/or evasive. (i.e.
failure to provide a list of witnesses with names and contact information of any kind). The court
therefore directs the following:
Parties are to immediately begin the meet and confer process on this Motion to Compel
Further Responses filed April 10, 2026. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on video
conference or in person in a good faith effort to resolve each matter on an item-by-item basis.
Both parties are to conduct themselves with professionalism and civility. See Townsend v.
Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; and Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21
Cal.App.4th 373, 380, fn.8. The meet and confer meeting(s) is to be recorded and the recording
is to be made available to the Court at the hearing. All parties/attorneys are ordered to make
the recording or may all agree to only one party making the recording.
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
No later than July 10, 2026 the parties shall file a JOINT status report of no more than 5
pages outlining which, if any, items remain in dispute and why, including any request for
sanctions. Failure to sign and participate in drafting the joint report will open each side to
monetary sanctions for failure to follow this Order pursuant to California Rules of Court 5.14 and
5.98.
The parties shall not file a response or reply papers or any other papers in support or
opposition of this motion. The court will only consider the joint status report that should explain
what item(s) remains in dispute and the legal reasons why it’s in dispute.
Parties shall explain the amount of monetary sanctions sought and the reasons why within the
joint status report such that the court can address the same in any subsequent order
individually.
The court reminds the parties that it is not enough to refer the court back to the original
papers or to other papers filed in association with each matter or previous status report.
Moreover, the joint status report(s) should proceed to list items remaining in dispute along with
the legal reason(s) why. The parties shall submit a joint status report that complies with CRC
3.1345 which explains why a specific request is in dispute and each party’s position. Parties
should be careful to delineate the items in dispute in such a way that the Court will be fully
aware as to which set of discovery the item in dispute is referring. If an item is not specifically
listed and briefed with applicable points and authorities in the joint status report, the Court will
assume that the issue has been resolved.
June 5, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
The parties are required to be reasonable in this process or face additional monetary
sanctions.
A courtesy copy of the joint status report(s) shall be delivered electronically to
Department 9. The hearing on this motion is scheduled on July 17, 2026, at 8:30AM in
Department 9.
TENTATIVE RULING #10: MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS CONTINUED TO JULY 17, 2026 AT 8:30AM IN DEPARTMENT 9 AND PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS AS STATED IN THE TENTATIVE RULING WITH REFERRENCE TO THE MOTION. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.
CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M.
LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
19