Case Number: TC028783 Hearing Date: December 11, 2018 Dept: A

# 8. German Munoz, et al. v. Truman Weatherly, et al.

Case No.: TC028783

Matter on calendar for: hearing on motion for leave to file second amended complaint

Tentative ruling:

I. Background

This action arises out of an alleged improper assumption of business identity and utilization by defendants of plaintiffs’ business name, identity and goodwill. Plaintiffs’ current counsel substituted in on April 2, 2018. Plaintiffs allegedly served defendants Michael Blazevich, Anna Blazevich, and David Welch on or about August 2, 2018 via substituted service with copies mailed on August 3, 2018; effective August 13, 2018.

This is plaintiffs’ second attempt to amend the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Counsel for defendants Michael Blazevich, Anna Blazevich, and David Welch is specially appearing on their behalf.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

II. Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473(a)(1) and 576 provide courts with the authority to allow the amendment of pleadings upon a showing of good cause and in the absence of prejudice. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that Plaintiff prepare a declaration specifying (i) the effect of the amendment, (ii) why the amendment is necessary, (iii) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and (iv) why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

“If discovery and investigation develop factual grounds justifying a timely amendment to a pleading, leave to amend must be liberally granted.” (Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) California judicial policy generally favors permitting amendment to pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where (1) the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory; and (2) the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3rd 486, 490.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) which requires that a motion for leave to amend be accompanied by a supporting declaration that specifies: (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.

This motion is otherwise meritorious.

IV. Ruling

The motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice.