Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV42411, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42411    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

            Plaintiffs Gerald Meehan and Lois Meehan’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

            Plaintiffs Gerald Meehan and Lois Meehan move for leave to file a first amended complaint.  Courts have discretion to permit an amendment to any pleading “in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  “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.)  Courts exercise their discretion “liberally to permit amendment,” and “[t]he policy favoring amendment is so strong that 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.) 

Defendants Pacific Horizon Holdings, LLC, Royal Crest Sands Asset Group, LLC, and ARTHA NG, LLC oppose this motion on the grounds that plaintiffs delayed seeking to amend the complaint.  Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend when (a) the moving party has delayed bringing the proposed amendment; and (b) the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing parties.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) 

Though plaintiffs do not justify their substantial delay, defendants do not show prejudice that would warrant denying this motion.  The new causes of action in plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint assert new theories of relief arising from the same facts alleged in the complaint.  The new fourth cause of action for nuisance would allege defendants are liable for violating parts of the City of Malibu Health and Safety Code governing placement of trash containers and waste disposal.  The initial complaint alleges defendants trespassed by “placing garbage cans on Plaintiffs’ Property” and “causing and leaving garbage on Plaintiffs’ Property.”  (Comp., ¶ 53.)  Similarly, the new fifth cause of action for “nuisance-surcharge” would allege defendants exceeded the scope of their easement for ingress and egress over plaintiffs’ property.  It arises from the same or similar allegations of trespass made in paragraphs 46 to 52 of the complaint. 

Permitting this amendment will not prohibit defendants from adequately preparing for trial, which is set for August 30, 2023.

            The motion is granted.  Plaintiffs are ordered to file the first amended complaint forthwith.