CIV526752 FUENTEBELLA ENTERPRISES VS. MARY GIORGI

FUENTEBELLA ENTERPRISES LLC THE ESTATE OF LLOYD J. DEMARTINI
JORDAN S. STANZLER IRENE Y. FUJII

PLAINTIFF FUENTEBELLA ENTERPRISES LLC (“FUENTEBELLA”) TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff Fuentebella Enterprises LLC (“Fuentebella”) to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

On a motion for leave to amend, 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.) Courts apply such a liberal policy at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) If the motion to amend is timely made and granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action. (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

While the court agrees with Defendant Estate of Lloyd J. DeMartini (“DeMartini”) that Fuentebella has delayed in seeking amendment, the court nevertheless finds that granting this motion does not appear to prejudice DeMartini. DeMartini claims that it is prejudiced because DeMartini is now deceased and otherwise unable to testify or provide evidence in his defense regarding the proposed amendment. However, the evidence shows that when Fuentebella attempted to depose DeMartini in 2016, DeMartini’s counsel requested that his deposition not be taken due to his medical conditions. (See Stanzler Supp. Decl., Exh. A.)

Moreover, Fuentebella is not seeking to allege new facts, but rather a different theory, i.e. that DeMartini was an “owner” of the dry cleaning business. (See City of Stanton v. Cox (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1563 [if amended pleading is based on same general set of facts that merely supports a different theory, no prejudice results]; see also Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The First Amended Complaint already alleges that he was an “operator” of the dry cleaning business, and Fuentebella now seeks to also add the allegation that he was an “owner” of the dry cleaning business. Fuentebella points out that it is relying on the same evidence in support of this theory that DeMartini owned the dry cleaning business.

Thus, given the liberal policy in allowing amendment and favoring trial on the merits and the absence of prejudice, the court exercises its discretion to allow Fuentebella to file its proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Fuentebella is to file and serve the proposed Second Amended Complaint by December 23, 2019.