Case Number: EC060521    Hearing Date: September 05, 2014    Dept: B

EC060521
ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET vs MELINE TSARUKYAN
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendant engaged in fraud when she sold a vehicle to them because she knew that the rightful owner’s interest had been removed from title.
Trial is set for November 17, 2014.

This hearing concerns the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add a cause of action for breach of oral contract. CCP section 473(a) permits the Court to grant leave to a party to amend a pleading. The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. If a 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. Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530.

The Plaintiffs’ attorney, Martha Frausto, provides facts in her declaration to demonstrate that the new cause of action is based on a settlement agreement between the parties. Ms. Frausto states that the parties had entered into an oral agreement, but that the Defendant did not sign the written memorialization of the agreement. Ms. Frausto states in paragraph 4 that the Defendant then breached the oral settlement agreement by filing for bankruptcy and by refusing to perform any of her obligations under the settlement agreement. Ms. Frausto states in paragraph 4 that the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay in this case on July 2, 2014. The Plaintiffs filed their motion on July 28, 2014.
These facts indicate that the Plaintiffs’ motion is timely because the Plaintiffs
filed it promptly after the bankruptcy stay was lifted.
The trial date is November 17, 2014. This is approximately two months after the hearing on this motion. At the hearing, the Court will make an inquiry whether a brief continuance of the trial is necessary to avoid any prejudice to the parties’ ability to prepare for trial. The issues in the new cause of action for breach of contract should not require a substantial amount of preparation or discovery because they arise from an oral agreement to settle the pending case.

The Defendant filed opposition papers in which she argues that the allegations against her are false and that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded any claim against her. Generally, the Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1045. This is because the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. Id. In the pending case, the Defendant may test the legal sufficiency of the new cause of action for breach of contract by filing the appropriate motion. Accordingly, this is not grounds to deny the motion.

Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.