NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is granted.

                                                                                

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Alfonso Cardenas and Sandra Cardenas (Plaintiffs) filed this action against their neighbors John Yadegar and Stephanie Louise Samuel-Yadegar (Defendants), alleging Defendants are improperly maintaining multiple fences, walls, hedges, and other vegetation along the property line Defendants share with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Defendants have installed video cameras that improperly record Plaintiffs and their property.

The current causes of action are: (1) Nuisance; (2) Spite Fence Abatement (Civil Code § 841.4); (3) Spite Fence Abatement (Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.31); (4) Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 12.22.C.20; (5) Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 1207.01.C; (6) Violation of Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan; and (7) Invasion of Privacy.

The trial is currently set to begin July 7, 2025.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to file a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint. Defendants filed an opposition.

 

 

 

 

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

A motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).

Additionally, if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek leave to add further factual allegations and claims for Trespass and Elder Abuse. The new factual allegations include recent changes Defendants have made on their property. The proposed amendment alleges that Defendants have increased the size of the alleged hedge/spite fence. Additionally, the proposed amendment alleges Defendants have installed additional security cameras pointed at Plaintiffs’ property. The trespass claim includes allegations that Defendants entered Plaintiffs’ property to cut down portions of Plaintiffs’ vegetation and are maintaining a pillar in the front yard of Defendant’s property, encroaching on Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants’ vegetation, security cameras, and making false police reports regarding Plaintiffs constitutes elder abuse.

Contents of Motion

Plaintiffs have included, with their motion, a copy of the proposed First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (FASC). Declaration of Justin Escano ¶ 6, Ex B. Plaintiffs include the changes to be made to the Complaint. Motion at p. 1:21-9:1. The motion, therefore, complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs also filed the Declaration of Alfonso Cardenas, specifying the effect of the amendment; why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).

Defendants’ Opposition

Defendants argue that the FASC contains claims known to Plaintiffs at the time of the original Complaint. These include the trespass claim based on the pillar, which Defendants argue was in the same location at the time of the original complaint, and the elder abuse claim, which incorporates the same factual allegations supporting the other causes of action. FASC ¶ 104. However, in the absence of prejudice, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend based only on delay. See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 565. Here, Defendants do not demonstrate any prejudice they will suffer but merely assert that the delay prejudices them. Such assertation is insufficient, as delay alone is not grounds to deny leave to amend. Ibid.

Additionally, Defendants argue that the new causes of action in the proposed FASC are uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants. However, the Court declines to consider these arguments here, and will instead consider them if raised in a demurrer to the FASC. See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 (noting “the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the Complaint is granted.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is granted.  Plaintiffs shall file and serve the FASC that is attached to the motion within 10 days of this order.