Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV03194, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03194    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

 

BACKGROUND

In this case, NATASHA IVOSEVIC (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages against STERN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. et al. (“Defendants”) related to her tenancy.

The initial Complaint alleged ten causes of action against Defendant: (1) Breach Of Contract, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty Of Habitability - Civ Code §1941.1, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Intentional  Misrepresentation (Civ Code§1709), (7) Abuse of Process,  (8) Landlord Retaliation (Civ. Code § 1942.5), (9) Violation Of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et. seq., Unlawful, Fraudulent and Unfair Business Acts and Practices, and (10) Negligence.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to allege additional causes of action for Quiet Title, Violation of Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance - Wrongful Eviction Attempt, Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, and Declaratory Relief. The proposed FAC also includes additional factual allegations which occurred after the filing of the initial Complaint, which relate to both the existing causes of action and the new causes of action. Defendants oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A trial court has discretion to allow a party to amend a pleading in the furtherance of justice. Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a). “If discovery and investigation develop factual grounds justifying a timely amendment to a pleading, leave to amend must be liberally granted.”  Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.  “It is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1428.

­
 
 The Court does have the discretion to deny leave to amend if it finds the party’s delay in presenting the amendment was unwarranted, or when it determines that the other party will be prejudiced due to needing more discovery or delay of the trial. Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 728, 739. Even if a party delays in moving to amend, however, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to deny leave to amend a pleading where the opposing party is not prejudiced by the proposed amendment. Kittredge Sports Co. v Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1048.

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), (b).) 

 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that, since the filing of the initial Complaint, she has learned additional facts related to Defendants’ alleged misconduct with respect to Plaintiff’s tenancy. (Ivosevic Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, 22-28; Mot. 16.) Specifically, Defendants started refusing Plaintiff’s rent and pursued several unlawful detainer actions against Plaintiff. (Id.) The proposed new allegations and causes of action are based on Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants’ conduct amounts to violations of the Beverly Hills RSO and the wrongful use of civil proceedings and necessitates Plaintiff also seeking to quiet title and for declaratory relief. (Id.) Plaintiff filed this motion once she determined that further settlement discussions with defense counsel had broken down. (Ivosevic Decl., ¶¶ 29-44.)

Defendants contend that the proposed new causes of action are duplicative of existing causes of action and will not result in any additional liability for Defendants or damages for Plaintiff. But courts generally do not consider the validity of proposed amendments to a pleading when considering a motion for leave to amend. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 (“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.”).  Thus, the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s proposed amendments does not factor into whether leave to amend is warranted because Defendant can challenge the sufficiency of the FAC once it is filed and served.

The Court disagrees with Defendants that the delay in filing this motion is unwarranted and will prejudice Defendants. Plaintiff’s reasons for delaying the request for leave, which include settlement negotiations and substitution of defense counsel, constitutes a satisfactory excuse for delay in prosecution or filing documents. E.g., San Bernardino City Unif. Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 233, 239. Similarly, an opinion determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint, because a recent substitution of attorney was one good reason for delay. See Richter v. Adams (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 184, 187.

Defendants’ contention that they would be prejudiced by an amendment at the stage of this case because it will prolong litigation and increase costs and fees is unavailing. This contention contradicts Defendants’ other contention that the amendment should be denied because it adds nothing to Plaintiff’s existing claims. Defendants’ claim that the new causes of action duplicate existing ones infers that they would have little more to prepare to defend against the new claims, which suggests that in fact, Defendants will not need to expend additional resources to litigate the new claims. Additionally, a possible trial continuance would avoid prejudice by allowing more time to prepare a defense. Indeed, Plaintiff has indicated she intends to seek such a continuance to alleviate any potential prejudice to Defendants. “[I]f an amendment is appropriate the trial Court should continue the trial if necessary,…”  Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 967.

Finally, Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural requirements for filing an amended complaint. Plaintiff has included a copy of the proposed FAC, specified by reference to pages and lines of the allegations that are to be added, and included a declaration detailing when Plaintiff discovered the facts giving rise to the proposed amendment and why Plaintiff waited to seek leave to amend. (Ivosevic Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, 22-44; Mot. 16; Notice of Refiling Proposed FAC).  Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to provide justification for why new claims are necessary and proper as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). The Court concludes that the detailed explanation of how Plaintiff discovered the new facts and how those facts fit into the proposed new allegations and causes of action substantially complies with Rule of Court 3.1324(b). Moreover, any rule noncompliance is only minimal and does not affect the ability to soundly analyze the motion; it certainly does not provide a basis to deny the motion. E.g., McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253 (court is bound to ignore any ‘defect … in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ ”).

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the motion. The proposed First Amended Complaint may be served and filed, as a separate document, within 10 days.