Important Change to our 30-day Money Back Guarantee ************************************** Due to the increasing allegations of fraudulent purchase transactions involving documents specifically designated for the purposes of litigation in eviction and/or unlawful detainer proceedings, we have been forced into choosing whether to continue offering such documents at all to ANYONE, or to declare that they are NON-REFUNDABLE, and are no longer covered by the 30-day money-back guarantee. ************************************** Consequently we have decided that as of March 16, 2024 at 1:00 am, PDT any single document specifically listed in the Eviction Defense Collection is hereby NON-REFUNDABLE. To determine if one or more of your proposed documents are NON-REFUNDABLE you will need to review the list of single documents found within the description for the Eviction Defense Collection. ************************************** In the meantime, we will be updating the individual file listings for all such affected documents. ************************************** HOWEVER, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED!

Amending an answer in California

by Stan Burman

Amending an answer in California is the topic of this blog post. 

Any defendant or cross-defendant in California can amend their answer within 10 days after service of the answer as a matter of right without having to file any motion with the court.

However after 10 days the party that wishes to amend their answer must request what is known as “leave of court” which means permission from the court to file and serve an amended answer.

The statutory authorization for leave to amend an answer in California is found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a) and 576, which both state in pertinent part that a court may, in the furtherance of justice allow a party to amend any pleading on any terms as may be proper.

The public policy in California for well over 100 years has been one of liberally permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding. The California policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that amendment denying leave to amend is an abuse of discretion unless the adverse party can show some form of meaningful prejudice.

Examples of prejudice include the expiration of the statute of limitations, a delay in the trial date, loss of evidence critical to the case of the opposing party, or added trial preparation costs. Unless a showing of such prejudice is made by the adverse party even delay alone is not always a sufficient reason for denying leave to amend.

The California Supreme Court ruled in a published case from over 100 years ago that liberality should be displayed in granting leave to amend an answer on the grounds that a defendant who is denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense. 

There are many reasons that a party may wish to amend their answer including the fact that the discovery process may reveal facts which may give rise to the possibility of additional affirmative defenses that can be asserted.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample 12 page motion for leave to amend an answer in California that includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample Motion for Leave to Amend Answer in California by Stan Burman on Scribd

 

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.


*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.  

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Back to Blog from LegalDocsPro