2017-00221399-CU-FR

Lita Bellamy vs. Howard Vaughn

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to File 1st Amended Complaint

Filed By: Garcia, Luke

Plaintiff’s Motion to File a First Amended Complaint is granted.

Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, contending these causes of action are necessary to obtain an equitable remedy in this case. Plaintiff states that it was not until after the Court denied plaintiff’s application for writ of attachment did she realize that the addition of the new causes of action would make possible an equitable resolution of this action in a speedy manner.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice… That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the

proceeding, has been established policy in this state…resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie v Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596 (citing text). Howard v. County of San Diego (2010)184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.” California Civil Procedure Before Trial (2012, Rutter) § 6:638 – 6:339. Courts apply the policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “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.4 th 739, 761.

This case is in its early stages and there is no prejudice to defendant in allowing the amendment.

In opposition, defendant contends that he is at a disadvantage because plaintiff has possession of the vehicle and he wants to move the case forward. Nothing in the granting of the motion to file a FAC affects moving the case forward. Moreover, Defendant has not explained how the addition of the two causes of action would prevent resolution of this case. Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint so that she can seek equitable relief in the form of the sale of the vehicle and the repayment to defendant of the amount of the value of his car which was traded in to pay $5,000 of the $40,000 purchase price of the 2015 Ford.

Plaintiff contends that the vehicle was to be used to operate an UBER business and each party would receive 50% of the proceeds of the UBER business. Plaintiff contends defendant breached the agreement and did not operate the UBER business, thus she seeks rescission of the parties agreement to return them to their former positions. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the vehicle was a gift from plaintiff, with whom he had a long time affair. Attached to his opposition are photos of him with plaintiff that are presumably submitted in support of his contention that the vehicle belongs to him because it was a gift due to their relationship.

The factual dispute as to whether the vehicle was a gift or whether plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the parties agreement to operate an UBER business cannot be determined on this motion, which is only a motion to amend the pleading. Therefore, the Court will not be taking evidence at the hearing nor will the Court order plaintiff to take a lie detector test.

Plaintiff shall file and serve an Amended Complaint containing all causes of action, not merely the new causes of action. The Court prefers an entirely new superseding pleading rather than an “amendment” to the Complaint.

The Amended Complaint shall be filed and served on or before April 9, 2018. Response to be filed and served within 30 days of the service of the Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

If requested by the parties, the Court will schedule an early Settlement Conference in Dept. 59, to allow an early neutral evaluation and possible early resolution