A long line of California Supreme Court cases, starting at least as far back as Kelley v. Kriess (1885) 68 Cal. 210, stand for the following principle regarding permissible amendments to pleadings: "If plaintiff has a good cause of action, which by accident or mistake he has failed to set out in his complaint, the court, on motion for judgment on the pleadings, should, on his application so to do, permit him to amend." (Id. at p. 212.) As a general rule, the pleadings delimit the issues to be considered on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, and new, unpleaded issues cannot be raised for the first time in opposition to the motion. (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1253.) However, "upon a motion for summary judgment, amendments to the pleadings are readily allowed. . If a plaintiff wishes to expand the issues presented, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to seek leave to amend the complaint either prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, or at the hearing itself." (Id. at p. 1258.) "In practice, where a defect appears on the face of the complaint, a trial court may elect to treat the hearing of the summary judgment motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and grant the opposing party an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the defect." (Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 625; accord, Kirby v. Albert D. Seeno Construction Co. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1067, 1069 "When considering challenges to the sufficiency of a pleading, the rule is that if it is reasonably possible that a defect in a complaint can be cured by an amendment, the trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing the action.".)