Hamidi vs. Mar Ranch, LLC

California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) Thus, leave to amend to more clearly state a plaintiff’s theories of liability should be liberally allowed. (Rainer v. Buena Community Memorial Hospital (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 253-254.) This liberality only applies so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)

Defendants seek leave to amend their Answers to the First Amended Complaint to delete the affirmative defenses of consent and justification and good faith, to add several new affirmative defenses, to add specific sections of the Code of Civil Procedure to their statute of limitations affirmative defense, and to add new factual allegations identified in discovery.

If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case, even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 CA3d 558, 564-565)

Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. As Defendants have complied with CRC 3.1324 and have met the requirements for seeking leave to amend, the motions are granted.

Defendants are ORDERED to file their Amended Answers within 5 days of this ruling.

Moving parties shall give notice of this ruling.

7 Hamidi vs. Mar TENTATIVE RULING: Ranch, LLC Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel of Record

The Law Office of Paul Mankin, APC moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Nataliia Zadorkina Hamidi. The motion is GRANTED. The order relieving counsel will be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the executed order upon all parties.

Moving counsel shall give notice of this ruling.