2017-00212846-CU-CD

Michael Yeaman vs. Morrison Homes, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike Doe Amendment #1

Filed By: Ulich, Robert K.

Defendant Morrison Homes, Inc.’s (Morrison) motion to strike Doe Amendment No. 1 is DENIED.

Because Morrison filed a substantive reply, the court will not strike the opposition on grounds it was late-filed or late-served. The parties are advised, however, that failures

to comply with rules of court or procedural statutes can result in adverse rulings.

This is a construction defect case. The plaintiffs are multiple homeowners (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs filed this action in May 2017. A special master was appointed, and considerable discovery has been completed.

On 7/11/18, Plaintiffs filed Doe Amendment No. 1, thereby naming eight subcontractors as defendants. No trial date has been set. In addition, the special master has stepped down and a motion to appoint a substitute is pending.

Morrison is not moving to quash service on any doe defendant on grounds Plaintiffs were actually aware of the subcontractors’ identities before the amendment was filed. (Compare GM Corp. v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 580.) Instead, Morrison is moving to strike the amendment on grounds of prejudicial delay. (See A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1060.) Assuming Morrison has standing to object to an amendment identifying other parties as “does,” the court denies the motion because there is no trial date. It appears a pre-trial order targeted November 2018 for trial, but no such trial date was set. As a result, any delay in naming the subcontractors has not resulted in sufficient prejudice to overcome the liberal policy favoring amendments of pleadings. (Compare A.N., supra, p. 1068 [Doe defendants were prejudiced because they were not named until one month before trial].) That Morrison may be required to provide the newly named defendants with a defense does not alter the outcome. The same may be said of the fact that additional discovery will be required.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Counsel for moving party is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s tentative ruling procedure. If counsel for moving party is unable to contact counsel for opposing party prior to hearing, counsel for moving party shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 is required.