Case Number: BC697450 Hearing Date: February 05, 2019 Dept: 31

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED

Background

On March 9, 2018 Plaintiff Chang Rok Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging five causes of action against Defendants Geon Oh Seo, and Chris Hwang (“Defendants”) arising out of an alleged altercation at the Korean Western Presbyterian Church including: (1) assault; (2) battery; (3) false imprisonment; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) intentional interference with contract relations.

On April 23 2018, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Chang Rok Kim for defamation, intentional interference with contractual economic relations and abuse of process.

Legal Standard

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).)

Analysis

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint pursuant to CCP §473(a) and 576 on the grounds that Plaintiff has discovered facts to support new causes of action. Plaintiff contends that in March 2018, after he filed the complaint, Plaintiff discovered illegal eavesdropping equipment and now Plaintiff has decided to file additional claims against Defendant Chris Hwang since the prospect of settling the instant dispute has become dim. (Kim Decl. ¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff’s counsel states the effect of the amendment will be to add several causes of action including recording of confidential information in violation of Penal Code §§632, 637.2, invasion of privacy and trespass. (Kim Decl. ¶7.)

Defendants have not opposed the instant motion, and in light of the policy to liberally allow amendments in the absence of prejudice, the Plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the instant motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice.