Re: JC Diversified Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. New Hampshire Insurance
Company, et al.
Superior Court Case No. 16CECG02896
Hearing Date: February 15, 2018 (Dept. 502 – note change of department)
Motion: Amend
Tentative Ruling:

To grant. (Code Civ. Proc. §473(a)(1).) Plaintiffs have 5 days to file the first amended complaint. The time in which the complaint may be amended will run from service by the clerk of the minute order. All new allegations in the amended complaint are to be set in boldface type.

Explanation:

The court has discretion to allow amendments to the pleadings “in the furtherance of justice.” (Code Civ. Proc. §473(a)(1).) This discretion is to be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, to support the strong judicial policy favoring resolution of all matters in one action. (Thompson Pacific Const., Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 544; Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047; see Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488–489 [courts to permit amendments at any stage of proceedings].) As a general matter, the court does not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend; after leave is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading. (See Kittredge, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.)

A motion to amend a pleading must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

In the case at bench, Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to add a cause of action for reformation of the insurance contract, based on document production received in January and February of 2017.

Defendant New Hampshire Insurance Company (“New Hampshire”) argues that Plaintiffs fail to present evidence that there was a mistake made by Defendant New

9

Hampshire, and that the proposed amendment significantly expands the scope of the action less than three months before trial, without justification, supporting evidence, or any explanation for the delay in filing the instant motion. Defendant New Hampshire argues that allowing amendment will prejudice Defendant New Hampshire because it will then have to undertake substantial additional discovery.

Plaintiffs are not required to present evidence in support of their motion to amend. (See Calif. Rules of Court, rule 3.1423). Moreover, Plaintiffs clearly explain that the amendment was not sought earlier because Defendant New Hampshire produced over 11,000 pages of discovery, which required time to review. The time between Plaintiffs’ receiving the discovery and finding the documents related to the instant motion was approximately seven months, which does not appear to be an unreasonable delay in light of the amount of documentation Plaintiffs’ counsel had to review. Upon finding the documents showing Defendants’ respective positions regarding the policy’s coverages, Plaintiffs contacted Defendants, seeking stipulation to amendment. Plaintiffs state that Defendant New Hampshire failed to respond to the request for stipulation until January 4, 2018; Plaintiffs filed the instant motion five days later, which hardly constitutes an unreasonable delay. Further, as neither side has yet deposed any of the parties, there will be no additional costs or burdens to be borne by Defendant New Hampshire with regard to discovery. Last, the information giving rise to the proposed amendment was obtained from Defendant New Hampshire, such that Defendant New Hampshire’s claim of having been misled and surprised appears unfounded. Defendant New Hampshire fails to show it will be prejudiced if amendment is permitted.

Plaintiffs have complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. The motion is sufficiently supported; the opposition fails to show prejudice sufficient to deny the motion; and allowing the filing of the proposed first amended complaint furthers the strong judicial policy of avoiding a multiplicity of actions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling
Issued By: DSB on 02/09/18
(Judge’s initials) (Date)