Judge: Brock T. Hammond, Case: 22CHCV00637, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00637    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F-43

Date: 2-14-24

Case # 22CHCV00637, Albert Hughes, III, et al., vs. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Albert Hughes III and Sabrina Crawford

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Laura De Leon and FF Properties LP; Defendant Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs request leave to file a Third Amended Complaint

RULING: Motion for leave to amend granted

SUMMARY OF ACTION AND ANALYSIS

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiffs Albert Hughes III and Sabrina Crawford (Plaintiffs) filed their original complaint. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action related to a breach of contract as well as negligence causes of action. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants breached their agreement by failing to disclose that a homicide had taken place at the premises where Plaintiffs were renting.

This case is still in the pleadings stage. On August 28, 2023, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on September 28, 2023. On November 6, 2023, Defendant Northwestern Mutual filed a demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. That demurrer is set to be heard on March 12, 2024.

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiffs seek to add one new cause of action to their complaint, as well as requests for damages. Defendants primarily oppose Plaintiffs’ motion on the basis that Plaintiffs’ amendments have no merit and would be subject to demurrer and because Defendant Northwestern Mutual argues that it would be prejudiced by the amended complaint. Defendant Northwestern Mutual also argues that there are procedural defects with Plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs argue in their reply that Northwestern Mutual’s prejudice argument is meritless and that Plaintiffs have met the requirements for requesting leave to amend.

This court is authorized, in its discretion, to “allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Code of Civil Procedure § 576, likewise, provides that “any 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 to any pleading . . .” (CCP § 576.) The determination of whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading rests in the court’s sound discretion.

Leave to amend is to be liberally granted at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1986) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487; see also County of Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Kern County (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1618 (noting that a plaintiff may be granted amendment even at the time of trial).) To overcome the policy of liberally granting amendments at any stage of litigation, a defendant must show both actual prejudice and inexcusable delay. (Magpali, 48 Cal.App.4th at 487.) Prejudice exists where an amendment to a complaint would result in a delay of trial; loss of critical evidence; added costs of preparation; and increased burden of discovery. (Id. at 486-488.)

Defendants have failed to show how they would be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. No trial date has even been set, so the trial would not be delayed.

As for Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs’ additions are without merit, that is not something to be decided in a motion for leave to amend.

However, motions for leave to amend must also meet certain procedural requirements. For instance, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a) requires that the motion “(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.”

Defendant Northwestern Mutual argues that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave amend does not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1324. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Appendix of Proposed Changes does not include the paragraph and line numbers of the changes, only the page numbers. However, Plaintiffs do include the paragraph numbers of the proposed additions. Though Plaintiffs did not include the line numbers, it is easy to ascertain where Plaintiffs wish to add paragraphs based on the information given by Plaintiffs. Defendant also points out that Plaintiffs did not indicate that they changed two very minor lines in Paragraphs 13 and 35 of the complaint: one being the Exhibit letter and the other being a reference to Plaintiffs’ unit number that was removed. The Court does not find that these discrepancies merit denying Plaintiffs’ motion.

Plaintiffs have met the requirements for filing an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is granted. Any demurrers to the second amended complaint are taken off calendar.

Moving party to give notice.