Case Name: The Irvine Company LLC v. Poured Floors, Inc.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-287842

Plaintiff The Irvine Company LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.)

While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. And it is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case. If the 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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.

(Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, internal citations and quotations omitted.)

Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint in this case arises out of Plaintiff’s claims in an underlying construction defect action filed in this court entitled, The Irvine Company LLC v. Douglas Ross Construction, Inc., et al., Case Number 1-12-CV-234516 (the “Underlying Action”). In the Underlying Action, Plaintiff settled with the general contractor, Douglas Ross Construction, and its insurer, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, and took an assignment of Douglas Ross Construction’s and Arch Specialty Insurance Company’s rights in subrogation against certain subcontractors.

In the original Complaint in this action, Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of a 439-unit apartment project commonly known as “The Redwoods” in San Jose, CA, and that non-party Douglas Ross Construction, Inc. was awarded a contract for construction of the project on August 16, 2004. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 3.) Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint the existence of various subcontracts entered into between Douglas Ross Construction and its subcontractors that include certain indemnity and insurance provisions. (Complaint, ¶¶ 17-33.)

Plaintiff states that, in the time since the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff has settled with all parties except Pinnacle Installations, Inc. (“Pinnacle”). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that it received an assignment of rights from non-parties Collier Warehouse, Inc., First Specialty Insurance Corporation, and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, whereby Plaintiff was assigned their rights against Pinnacle in subrogation. In the proposed FAC, Plaintiff incorporates the additional assigned rights and removes all defendants from the allegations except for Pinnacle and certain DOE defendants.

Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. Further, there is no trial date set in this action and there does not appear to be any prejudice to Pinnacle from the amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.