Case Number: BC637301 Hearing Date: March 23, 2018 Dept: 32

Richard “Richie” pAlmer,

Plaintiff,

v.

Gabriel Rueda, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC637301

Hearing Date: March 23, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Richard “Richie” Palmer brings this complaint against Defendant Gabriel Rueda (“Rueda” or “Defendant”) asserting causes of action for (1) breach of oral contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing’ (3) false promise; (4) quantum meruit; (5) injust enrichment; and (6) declaratory relief.

Rueda is the plaintiff in an action (case no. BC611486) (“Underlying Action”) in which he seeks adjudication of his claim to a finder’s fee arising out of the May 2, 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao. In the Underlying Action, Rueda alleges that he introduced CBS Network President, Leslie Moonves, and Pacquiao’s trainer, Freddie Roach, for the purpose of arranging the fight and with the understanding that he would be paid a finder’s fee of 2%. Plaintiff alleges that he facilitated the meeting between Moonves and Roach, and came to an agreement with Rueda that any finder’s fees would be equally split between the two.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE/EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The parties’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.

Defendant Rueda’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

The court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….” (CCP § 473.) “[D]iscretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.) It is generally abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend if the opposing party does not show prejudice. (Ibid.) It is not an abuse of discretion of the court unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”. (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.) “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.” (Ibid.) Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that must specify (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 for amendment was not made earlier. (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the complaint to correct certain dates upon which important events occurred. Plaintiff explains that after review discovery, he realized that the complaint mistakenly identified a few incorrect dates upon, and that the dates reflected in the complaint are off by only a few days. (Palmer Decl.) In opposition, Defendant asserts that the proposed amendment is a sham and contradict Plaintiff’s declaration and verified discovery responses. However, Defendant fails to show prejudice that would result from the amendment. Defendant argues that evidence submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment will show that Plaintiff’s amended allegations are false. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s amendment is a sham, Defendant will be able to prove this by way of his summary judgment motion. At most, Defendant will be inconvenienced by having to amend his motion for summary judgment. However, this will result in nothing more than a delay in the proceedings. This is not the type of prejudice that would justify denying a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amendments do not add any causes of action or defendants, and do not change the nature of the case.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.