Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV11592 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff in pro per Samuel Abam (Plaintiff or Abam) filed a complaint against Defendant Archstone Toluca Hills LLC (Defendant or Archstone) alleging wrongful eviction, negligence, and extortion.

Plaintiff alleges that he applied for COVID-19 rental assistance in October 2021, but Defendant served him with a three-day notice to pay rent or be evicted in December 2021. In March 2022, Defendant then served Plaintiff with an unlawful detainer notice. The Complaint seeks $250,000,000.00 in damages.

In June 2022, Defendant moved to quash service because the summons was improperly served. The Court granted the motion on July 1, 2022.

Plaintiff now moves to amend the Complaint. He seeks to update Defendant’s name and change the causes of action to negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The basis for the First Amended Complaint is that Defendant allegedly misrepresented itself by using an unregistered, fictious name to initiate an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. No opposition has been filed.

The Court previously continued the hearing and ordered Plaintiff to comply with the procedural requirements of California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324. Since he has complied with the requirements and given the liberality with allowing amendment, the Court grants the motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint.

The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Accordingly, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 [“instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare.”].) Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (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) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).)

Plaintiff has complied with the Rules of Court. He attaches the proposed First Amended Complaint and an “Appendix of Proposed Changes,” which details the changes from his original Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that after Defendant moved to quash the summons, he realized he named the incorrect party and seeks to sue Defendant based on that alleged misrepresentation.

The Court is dubious that the proposed misrepresentation claims are sufficient. All these causes of action require allegations of a misrepresented, material fact in which Defendant intended to induce Plaintiff’s reliance and resulting damage. (See generally, National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) It is doubtful that Defendant’s allegedly incorrect name constitutes a material fact and the relationship between the name and Plaintiff’s damages appear tenuous. Furthermore, Plaintiff admits in the First Amended Complaint that the unlawful detainer action has been dismissed so any incurred damages appear speculative. Finally, allegations of misrepresentation may not be pled in a general manner and must be specific, addressing the “‘how, when, where, to whom, and by what means.’” (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.)

Nevertheless, the sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint will be tested upon a proper motion by the Defendant as necessary. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

Department 58