Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)

Citation: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Parent Document: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2009-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2267097/bisno-v-douglas-emmett-realty-f... ↗

Full Text

897 chars

Given the trial court’s legal error and the effect it had on the outcome of this action, we believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying Emmett’s motion for leave to amend. Bisno contends the order can be affirmed because Emmett was not diligent in bringing the motion. He supports this by pointing out that the motion was brought 10 months after the complaint was filed, after discovery was nearly over, and a trial date had been set. That is not enough. The motion was brought six months before the original trial date, and nearly a year before trial took place. Discovery was still ongoing, the proposed amendment raised primarily a legal issue, and Bisno does not contend that he was prevented from conducting discovery on any factual issues related to the defense. Finally, there is nothing in the record that suggests the trial court denied the amendment because it was untimely.

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text