Wong v. Superior Court CA1/5

Filed 6/29/16 Wong v. Superior Court CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

DAVID WONG, et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA A148225 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. N12-1269) SALIM SHELBY, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

THE COURT:* Petitioners seeks writ relief from the denial of their motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We grant the petition by way of this memorandum opinion because “[t]he Courts of Appeal should dispose of causes that raise no substantial issues of law or fact by memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) Writ review is appropriate to review the denial of leave to amend, since the trial court’s ruling deprives petitioners the opportunity to plead their cause of action. (Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 164; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 148, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Sakiyama v.

* Before Simons, Acting P.J., Needham, J., and Bruiniers, J.

1

AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. (2003) 110 CalApp.4th 398, 412, fn. 6.) The record before us is adequate (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186–187; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1))1, real parties in interest having cured the claimed record deficiencies by submitting exhibits with their opposition brief.2 Petitioners sought to amend their complaint to substitute five individuals for Doe defendants, and to revise and add numerous causes of action. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the trial court’s order denying leave to amend, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180; Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296–297.) The trial court erroneously determined the Doe amendments were untimely. The record does not demonstrate petitioners knew facts giving rise to a cause of action against those individuals in 2013, or for that matter, prior to discovery produced in July and August 2015.3 (Code Civ. Proc., § 474; General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 580, 594; Wallis v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 782, 786.)