Greg Peters et al v. Susan Burnham Jevarian et al

Typically, a court will exercise its discretion liberally in favor of allowing amendment of the pleadings in order that litigation may be tried on its merits. (See Kauffman v. Bobo & Wood (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 322, 323.) “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. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

C. ANALYSIS

The Court finds that the moving papers satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (See Notice of Motion; see also Declaration of William M. Paoli (Paoli Decl.), and exhibits attached thereto.)

OC Jones & Sons, Inc. (OCJ), alone, opposes the instant motion. OCJ contends that the Paoli Decl. fails to set forth “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered[] and . . . [t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(b)(3) and (4).) The Court disagrees. (See Paoli Decl. at ¶¶ 9-12.)

OCJ correctly notes that if the moving party has delayed seeking leave to amend and if that delay works to prejudice an opposing party, then the court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend. (See Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939-40 [“The law is...clear that even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may – of itself – be a valid reason for denial”].)

OCJ contends that Plaintiff delayed bringing the instant motion for some ten months. (See, e.g., Opposition at 7:2-3.) It appears uncontested that the information leading to the amendment came to light in the form of responses by OJC, served on August 1, 2025, to discovery served by Plaintiff on January 9, 2024. (See Paoli Decl. at ¶¶ 5-9; see also Declaration of Saima Aslam at ¶¶ 5-7 (Aslam Decl.), and Opposition at 7:2-9).) While that date is, indeed, some ten months before the filing of the motion, OCJ ignores the fact that time thereafter was required to review those responses and conduct subsequent research. (See Paoli Decl. at ¶¶ 9-12.) The Court notes that OCJ’s discovery responses were served after an unexplained 18-month delay from the initial deadline for responding. (Id. at ¶ 5-8.)

OCJ fails to persuade the Court that it has suffered or will suffer prejudice from the delay. OCJ asserts that it “will incur prejudice as it has already expended a significant amount of time in preparing discovery responses and has spent time in preparing its PMK for a deposition before Plaintiffs’ motion is heard. If Plaintiffs are granted their Motion, OC Jones will be required to respond to similar discovery, to which it has already responded and potentially need to produce its witnesses to address any ‘new’ facts or allegations. The financial burden and effort necessary to respond to additional allegations and discovery constitutes prejudice.” (Id. at 7:18- 24.)

OCJ presents evidence, however, that Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to postpone the deposition of OCJ’s Person Most Knowledgeable until after hearing on the instant motion. (See

Aslam Decl. at ¶ 20, Exh. I.) Moreover, OCJ fails to suggest, let alone persuade the Court that any additional discovery is necessitated by the asserted delay in bringing the instant motion.

Finally, OCJ correctly notes that prejudice can arise from a delay in proceeding to trial. (Magpali v. FFarmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) However, no trial date has been set in the instant action.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.

Phillip R. Christman v. Arturo Curiel et al 25CV001366

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED.

There remains no notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9 to the opposing party/ies. To the extent the moving party has not yet complied with that direction, the Court hereby renews that direction to the moving party. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Water Audit California v. County of Napa et al 25CV002032

[1] DEMURRER TO PETITIONER’S SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JUDICIAL DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E(2), Judge Smith discloses that her husband works for Hundred Acre Winery, a Napa County winery. She is unaware of any connection between Hundred Acre Winery and the instant litigation, and unaware of any impact from the instant action on her husband’s employer. She can be fair and impartial in this matter.

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is SUSTAINED. Petitioner is granted 10 Court days’ leave to file a further amended Petition; limited, however, to alleging facts: (1) entitling Petitioner to a writ of mandamus for acts or omissions of Respondent other than noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if appropriate; (2) sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Public Trust Doctrine; and/or (3) sufficient to state a claim for violation of Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.

The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows

4