James Head vs Tyler Head

Case Number

25CV01987

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/09/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) CMC; 2) Motion: Leave to Amend Complaint

Tentative Ruling

On April 2, 2025, plaintiff James Head filed his original complaint alleging two causes of action against defendant Tyler Head: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On May 29, 2025, the court entered default against defendant Tyler Head, which was set aside pursuant to defendant’s motion on July 28, 2025.

On July 28, 2025, defendant Tyler Head filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 14 affirmative defenses. On July 30, defendant filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff and cross-defendant James Head asserting three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory relief. On September 19, 2025, plaintiff and cross-defendant James Head filed an answer to the cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting two affirmative defenses.

On October 6, 2025, plaintiff James Head filed this motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to allege breach of a settlement agreement in this action. Defendant Tyler Head opposes the motion arguing that the motion does not meet the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, that the proposed amendment is barred by the agreement of the parties and the doctrine of election of remedies, that the motion is untimely, and that granting leave to amend will prejudice the defendant. No trial date has yet been set.

“ ‘The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading ....’ [Citation.] However, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. [Citations.] The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.] ‘Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.’ [Citation.]” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)

The motion is sufficient to identify the nature and basis of the amendment. No trial date has been set and no significant prejudice is shown by allowing the amendment. To the extent that defendant contends that the proposed first amended complaint does not state a claim, the preferred approach is to permit the amendment and to address those issues by appropriate pleading challenges. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)

The motion for leave to amend is granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve the first amended complaint, substantially in the form attached to the motion, on or before February 17, 2026.