SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
PEPPER LANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 2017-1-CV-314747
TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on November 9, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a construction defect action. The Complaint, filed on August 18, 2017, sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Residential Building Standards (Civil Code §§ 896 and 897); (2) Negligence; (3) Strict Liability; (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (California Civil Code § 1792); (5) Negligence of Design Professionals; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (7) Violation of Governing Documents.
Currently before the Court is defendant and cross-complainant Taylor Morrison of California, LLC’s (“Taylor Morrison”) motion for leave to file its Amended Answer to the Complaint.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.)
While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. And it 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. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.)
III. DISCUSSION
Taylor Morrison requests leave to file its Amended Answer, which adds a single affirmative defense – Failure to Comply with Governing Documents. Taylor Morrison asserts the affirmative defense is based on the recent decision of Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 743. Taylor Morrison argues it has acted in good faith and the Amended Answer will not prejudice any party.
The motion is unopposed. Accordingly, Taylor Morrison’s motion is GRANTED.
The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.