DELORES MARTIN VS. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24619296 - December 16, 2025 Hearing date: December 16, 2025 Case number: CGC24619296 Case title: DELORES MARTIN VS. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24619296 | Case Title: | | DELORES MARTIN VS. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-16 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File First Amended Complaint; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Delores Martin In Support Of Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Tuesday, December 16, 2025, Line 4, PLAINTIFF DELORES MARTIN, AN INDIVIDUAL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Delores Martin's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code." (Code Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1).)

"[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments." (Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230.) "Great liberality is indulged in matters of amendment to the end that lawsuits may be determined upon their merits." (Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 751.) "[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment." (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) "It is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.'" (Id.)

Good cause appearing here, the court grants Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendant correctly notes that the motion does not technically comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1324. Nevertheless, one can clearly discern the changes between the original and first amended complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to: (1) list the precise amount of damages ($168,723.93); (2) list the precise amount of claimed interest ($50,617); (3) and add the prayer "Enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of plaintiff and against Defendant Mercury Ins. Co. and California Automobile Ins. Co." Those are the only changes.

Plaintiffs shall file and serve the SAC forthwith, but in no event more than 15 days after this order is filed.

Plaintiff's declaration refers to a request for judgment. The court clarifies that this motion is not the vehicle to obtain judgment, and subsequent proceedings are necessary for plaintiff to obtain that relief.

Both Parties must prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |