PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY VS WORLD MECHANICAL, INC., ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6141    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 26

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. World Mechanical, Inc., et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP ;; 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Pacific Bell Telephone Company’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Pacific Bell Telephone Company (“Plaintiff”) brought suit for trespass, negligence and damage to property against Defendants World Mechanical, Inc., Hollywood International Regional Center, Inc. and Robert Lee. On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Lee. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against World Mechanical, Inc. and Hollywood International Regional Center, Inc. On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Chris Meekins Backhoe Service, Inc.

Plaintiff sought to enter default against Defendant Chris Meekins Backhoe Service, Inc. and World Mechanical, Inc. at the end of January 2020. The requests were rejected by the clerk’s office because there was no court order allowing the filing of the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint on March 2, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint to add Chris Meekins Backhoe Service, Inc. as a defendant. Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Also, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Plaintiff’s motion complies with Rule 3.1324 with respect to the contents of the motion and inclusion of a supporting declaration. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting declaration set forth in detail what changes are to be added and where, and that the amendments arise following Plaintiff’s discovery that Chris Meekins Backhoe Service, Inc. should be named as a defendant. (Motion, Munoz Decl., ¶¶2-4.) Plaintiff explains that while the body of the First Amended Complaint included Chris Meekins Backhoe Service, Inc. as a defendant, it was not included in the caption of the First Amended Complaint. (Ibid.) Upon realizing this error, Plaintiff sought to file the Second Amended Complaint but did so without leave of Court. (Motion, Munoz Decl., ¶¶2-4.)

The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Ibid.) Here, nothing suggests inexcusable delay by Plaintiff or any prejudice to Defendants, who have yet to be served with the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted this action and previously obtained default against Defendants World Mechanical, Inc. There is nothing to show that allowing leave to amend prejudices Defendants.

The Court, therefore, finds that leave to amend is appropriate to allow Plaintiff to add Chris Meekins Backhoe Service, Inc. as a defendant. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.