Appellant seller sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, (California) that refused him leave to file a second amended cross-complaint and entered judgment against him in a suit brought by respondents, members of a school district that purchased real property from appellant.
Nakase Law Firm explains working off the clock
Overview
After respondent school district purchased real property from appellant, respondent filed a complaint against appellant seeking various forms of relief arising out of the sale and purchase. Appellant filed a cross-complaint and a first amended cross-complaint but the trial court entered judgment against appellant upon his failure to comply with the claims statute. Appellant then filed a motion to filed a second amended complaint that was denied by the court. The court entered judgment against appellant and appellant sought review, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him leave to file the second amended cross-complaint. The court found that the amendment of pleadings was within the discretion of the trial court and would not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion. However, the court found that because respondents’ counsel had failed to deliver discovery items to which appellant was clearly entitled and there was no showing of prejudice to respondents, the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant the right to amend his action. The court therefore reversed the judgment.
Outcome
The court reversed the judgment in favor of respondents because it held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellant to amend his cross-complaint in light of the fact that respondents’ counsel failed to deliver discovery items to which appellant was clearly entitled and that there was no showing of prejudice to respondents.
