LINDA CAMERENA VS. JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, September 10, 2025, line 4, PLAINTIFF LINDA CAMERENA MOTION FOR LEAVE TO To File A First Amended Complaint; Declaration Of Ligia M. Parmenter - Exhibit "A" Proposed First Amended Complaint (tenative ruling part 1, see part 2)

Plaintiff Linda Camarena's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. This court should grant leave for a party to amend a pleading "in furtherance of justice." (Code Civ. Proc., section 473, subd. (a)(1).) "That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901." (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.)

Although amendments are liberally granted, leave to amend is properly denied when the proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action and thus would be futile, or where the plaintiff has delayed in seeking the amendment and the delay has prejudiced the defendant. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739.)

Here, the proposed amendment would not be futile. While a proposed amendment must state a valid cause of action, "that rule would find its most appropriate application in cases in which the insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent and where the insufficiency could not be cured by further appropriate amendment." (California Casualty General Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-81.) There is not indication here that the proposed causes of action based on negligence per se or California Civil Code section 1812.82 would be futile. Therefore, "the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings." (Ibid.)

Additionally, although Camarena has waited almost two years to seek leave to amend the complaint, that delay has not prejudiced the Jewish Community Center. In Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471