TENTATIVE RULING

Judge J. William McLafferty
Department 5 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street
P.O. Box 21107 
Santa Barbara, CA  93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

The court grants plaintiff Monteverde Landscapes, Inc.’s motion for leave to file first 
amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file the original of the first amended complaint 
(which is currently in the court file only as an exhibit). The first amended complaint 
shall be deemed served on defendants Peter Douglas and Spieler Construction, Inc., 
as of November 23, 2009.

A court may allow an amendment to a pleading in the furtherance of justice at any 
time. CCP § 576. Courts exercise their discretion to allow amendments liberally. 
Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. “[I]t is a rare case in which a court 
will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may 
properly present his case. 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. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 
[citations omitted]. The liberal policy of permitting amendments should be applied 
only where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. Magpali v. Farmers Group 
(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.

The motion includes the proposed amended pleading and sufficiently identifies the 
addition of the quantum meruit claim in the common count attachment so as to 
comply with CRC 3.1324(a). The court had no trouble locating the amendment. 
Counsel has described the effect of the amendment and its necessity, indicating that 
the quantum meruit cause of action will permit plaintiff to seek the equitable remedy 
of the reasonable value of his services in the event his contract claims fail. While 
counsel does not say precisely when he learned of the need to add the cause of 
action, he does say he learned recently. The declaration in support of the motion 
substantially complies with CRC 3.1324(b).

Counsel has stated that the failure to plead quantum meruit was a result of his 
mistake and neglect. It is immaterial that another attorney in the firm actually signed 
the complaint. What matters is who drafted it and more than one attorney in the firm 
may have been involved in that. Douglas has made no showing whatsoever of any 
prejudice.

The court will grant the motion for leave to file the first amended complaint.