BAKER VS. SMITH, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0209620 Proposed Tentative on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint: Plaintiff Robert Wayne Baker seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The Proof of Service indicates service on Defendants’ counsel by mail on June 16, 2026. This is not timely as all moving papers must be filed and served no less than sixteen 1

court days prior to the hearing and five calendar days are added for mail within the State of California. CCP § 1005(b). Defendants filed an Opposition on June 29, 2026, which is untimely. However, as service was late, the late Opposition is excused and will be considered.

CCP § 473(a)(1) permits any pleading to be amended in further of justice and on any terms as may be proper, after notice to the adverse party. The Court’s discretion in this regard will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 920, 939. “If the 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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”

Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. In general the Court should not concern itself with the validity of the proposed amendment in the motion for leave to amend. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1048. The validity of the amendment can be challenged by a subsequent demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or other appropriate proceeding. Id.

Delay alone is not sufficient grounds to deny a motion to amend, absent prejudice to the opposing party. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 761. Prejudice exists, however, where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, loss of evidence, added preparation costs, additional discovery, or other costs. The weight of the prejudices is increased where there is no explanation for the delay in amending. See, e.g., Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 486-488; P & D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1345; Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 627, 649. Defendants presented no evidence of prejudice.

In addition to the merits of a motion, the Court must consider whether proper procedure was followed. CRC 3.1324(a)(2) and (3) require the moving party to state what allegations in the previous pleading are to be added or deleted and state where, by page, paragraph, and line number the deletions and additional allegations. A supporting declaration is required that contains all the information set forth in CRC 3.1324(b). Plaintiff did not follow CRC 3.1324 as the changes are not specified in sufficient detail and the declaration does not fully address each factor set forth in CRC 3.1324(b).

The motion is DENIED without prejudice for not complying with CRC 3.1324. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order that will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling. Should Plaintiff elect to correct the defects and file for leave again complying with CRC 3.1324, Plaintiff is reminded to timely serve the motion per CCP § 1005(b) and to file a proof of service.

FASSBINDER, ET AL. VS. PG&E CORPORATION, ET AL.