Bethea

DISCUSSION

I. Effect of the First Amended Answer

Bethea contends that the motion for summary judgment was moot and should not have been heard because Inglewood had not filed a verified answer as of the date the motion for summary judgment was filed. Bethea reasons that because Inglewood’s answer was not verified, it “had not answered” the first amended complaint, so the case was not at issue. Code of Civil Procedure section 446 provides that when a city is a defendant, its answer need not be verified. The summary judgment motion was properly considered by the trial court.

II. Request that the Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer be Stricken

Bethea’s next contention is that Inglewood’s motion to amend was untimely and must be stricken on appeal. Assuming for the purposes of argument that this claim is cognizable on appeal from the summary judgment, we conclude that the motion to amend the answer was not untimely. In furtherance of justice, a court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1)), and “[t]he rule is that courts will be liberal in allowing an amendment to a pleading when it does not seriously…