Re: Dean Hiyama v. Paige Ann Rivera
Superior Court No. 14CECG02395 Hearing Date: If timely requested – April 5, 2018 @ 3:00 p.m. (Dept. 402)

Motion: Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling:

To grant.

Explanation:

Code of Civil Procedure section 473 authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473; Cherrigan v. City etc. of San Francisco (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 643, 653.) Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, Courts employ a liberal policy in permitting amendments at any stage. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564; Congleton v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 51, 62.) Types of prejudice a court will consider are: l) an increase in the amount of discovery that will need to be performed and 2) the potential for delay of trial. (Magpali v Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 471, 487.) But delay alone is reason for denial only under certain extreme circumstances. (see e.g. Magpali, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 486-488 [motion denied on the eve of trial where moving party was seeking to add whole new cause of action without explanation]; Jew Fun Him v. Occidental Life Ins Co. (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 246 [motion denied after unfavorable summary judgment without explanation]; Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 487 [same]; Emerald Bay Community Assn v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1097 [motion denied after trial without explanation].) Notwithstanding, it is generally permissible to introduce new legal theories as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to add a cause of action for resulting trust in place of cause of action four, constructive trust. The factors weigh in favor of amendment. First, there is no indication of prejudice. Though there is delay, there are no extreme circumstances by which denial would be justified. We are not yet on the eve of trial, no unfavorable summary judgment has been rendered against moving party, and we are certainly not operating after trial yet. Plus, a reasonable explanation is provided, “[w]hen Defendant challenged this cause of action [constructive trust] through its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff discovered the propriety of a Resulting Trust cause of action.” (Thornton Dec., filed: 3/1/18 ¶5.) More, no new facts will be added (Id. at ¶6, Ex. A), and the new cause of action – resulting trust, is nearly identical to constructive trust. (Lezinsky v. Mason Malt Whisky Distilling Co. (1921) 185 Cal. 240, 243, 244; Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf Course (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 354, 373, 374.)
5

In opposition, Defendant argues that she’ll have to “start the case over again” (Opp., filed: 3/22/18, p2 ln27), and that allowing amendment at this point in time is “reward[ing] Hiyama’s sitting on his hands,” without “good cause.” (Id. at p3 lns 5-6.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion is an “eleventh-hour attempt” to delay (Id. at p3 ln12), and will likely cause another round of discovery and a trial continuance. (Id. at p3 lns 15-16, 18-19.) None of Defendant’s arguments are convincing. First, a restart is unlikely, as no new facts are being added and the new cause of action- resulting trust, is nearly identical to constructive trust. Next, a showing of good cause is not necessary. In fact, a reasonable explanation is needed only in extreme circumstances, none of which are present here. Finally, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, we are not yet at the “eleventh hour,” as trial is still approximately seven months out. And new discovery and trial continuance are also unlikely because again, the facts are the same and the causes of action are nearly identical.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling Issued By: JYH on 04/03/18 (Judge’s initials) (Date)