Case Number: EC062049    Hearing Date: September 12, 2014    Dept: B

9. EXC062049
VARTAN DERBEDROSSIAN vs HOVHANES VAHANIAN
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Case Management Conference

This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants breached an agreement to sell their property to the Plaintiffs for $1,210,000.
No trial is set. The case management conference is set for the same date as this hearing.
This hearing concerns the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs seek to add a cause of action for fraud.
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 demonstrates that its motion is timely with the facts in the declaration of their attorney, Christopher Delaplane. Mr. Delaplane states that his law firm substituted into the case on July 10, 2014 and that after reviewing the case, he determined that there are grounds to plead a claim for fraud against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed the motion on August 18, 2014, which is approximately one month after their new counsel substituted into the case, reviewed the file, and determined that a fraud claim should be added. This demonstrates that the motion is timely.
Further, there is no trial date. The case management conference is set for this hearing. Since there is no trial date, there is no prejudice to the Defendants’ ability to prepare a defense to the new claim before trial.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ new cause of action for fraud lacks sufficient facts and contradicts allegations in the original complaint. Generally, the Court does not 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, since there is no trial date, the Defendants have sufficient time to 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.
The Defendants then argue that they will suffer prejudice from the amendment. However, the Defendants offer no facts to demonstrate that the amendment will prejudice their ability to prepare for trial. Accordingly, this is not grounds to deny the motion.

Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.