Plaintiff Kenneth Group Incorporated’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted.

The court declines to consider the sur-reply, as Defendant as sur-reply is not contemplated in the California Rules of Court and Defendant did not seek leave to file it.

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit.  Thus, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)   The court declines to determine at this point whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged causes of action. Here, Plaintiff has substantially complied with California Rule of Court 3.1324(b).  The proposed first amended complaint does not appear to be a sham pleading. The evidence set forth by Plaintiff demonstrates that through diligent discovery, he learned of different facts, including a new contract, that goes to the heart of Plaintiff’s allegations. (See Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945 [under this state’s liberal rules of pleading, the right of a party to amend to correct inadvertent misstatements of facts or erroneous allegations of terms cannot be denied].)  Moreover, there is no prejudice to Defendant.  There is no trial date, and little discovery, if any, has been conducted by Defendant.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Within 15 days, Plaintiff shall electronically file the first amended complaint.  Plaintiff shall serve the first amended complaint pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.

The ruling on the Motion renders moot the upcoming motion for judgment on the pleading.  The court hereby vacates the 4/21/2017 hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleading.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling and of the court’s order vacating the 4/21/2017 hearing.

image_pdfimage_print