Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV28270, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28270    Hearing Date: May 21, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff Bernard Nellom (“Plaintiff”) filed a form complaint against Defendants Watson H. Family Living Trust, HW Property Management, Inc., and Does 1 to 10 for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that on November 19, 2020, he was injured on property owned by Defendants that contained defective ceilings, floors, and stairs.

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Hubert Watson as Doe 1.

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend his complaint in order to add Doris Sturgis as a plaintiff and assert the following additional causes of action: Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability; Breach of the Statutory Warranty of Habitability; Nuisance; Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Breach of Contract. The proposed amended complaint also seeks injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. Unlike the original complaint, the proposed amended complaint is organized on pleading paper.

Defendants Hubert Watson Family Living Trust and HW Property Management, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose. No reply has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Amendment to Pleadings: General Provisions

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 576, “[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “[t]he 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.)¿ The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held: “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”  (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.)  Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].)

“The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 6:636 (hereafter Weil & Brown).)  Denial of a motion to amend is rarely justified if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party. (Id. at ¶ 6:639, citations omitted.)  However, 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. (Id. at ¶ 6:655, citations omitted. Absent prejudice, any claimed delay alone is not grounds for denial. “If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:653 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565).)  “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.  . . .  But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not the kind of prejudice the court will consider.”  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:656, citations omitted.)

“Even if some prejudice is shown, the judge may still permit the amendment but impose conditions, as the Court is authorized to grant leave ‘on such terms as may be proper.’”  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:663, citation omitted.)  For example, the court may cause the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs and fees incurred in preparing for trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:664 (citing Fuller v. Vista Del Arroyo Hotel, 42 Cal.App.2d 400, 404).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324:  Procedural Requirements

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, 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.”

In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

“(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.”

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the motion states the paragraph numbers and sections that will be added to the amended complaint. Plaintiff also provides a copy of the proposed amended complaint. (Howard Decl., Exh. B.)  However, the declaration in support does not specify the effect of the amendment, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why they were not made earlier. Therefore, the procedural requirement for this motion has not been met.

The original complaint arose out of an incident on November 19, 2020 when Plaintiff attempted to open the locked front door of his apartment located at 11130 S. Freeman Avenue in Inglewood, California. Plaintiff alleges that as he tried opening his door, he stepped back, and due to slope and deficiencies of the steps, lost his footing and fell. (Motion, 6.)

The proposed amended complaint alleges issues with the subject apartment, which Plaintiffs have lived at since March 1, 2013. It alleges that Plaintiffs did not notice any structural defects upon first beginning their tenancy. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were informed of the defective condition of the stairs during an August 15, 2020 housing inspection. After Plaintiff allegedly fell down the stairs on November 19, 2020, the amended complaint asserts that subsequent housing inspections found issues with, among other things, leaking water, a roach infestation, and a bathtub needing reglazing, which Defendants failed to fix.

Plaintiff argues that recent findings in discovery support the addition of the proposed causes of action and adding a new plaintiff to this case. However, Plaintiff does not discuss exactly what those new findings are in the motion or declaration. Instead, Plaintiff generally asserts that the amendments are necessary “because recent discoveries resulting from the scrutiny of Defendants’ discovery responses, subpoenaed records, and recent deposition testimonies have substantially influenced the course of this litigation.” (Howard Decl. ¶ 3.) The motion does not state when the depositions took place nor provides any of the discovery responses that support the new allegations. As set forth above, although leave to amend is liberally granted, the Court must consider the delay, as it is explained in a declaration by counsel. Counsel’s declaration does not contain the information required by the California Rules of Court. 

Therefore, the Court denies the motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.