Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 23STCV00546, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00546    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             April 21, 2025

Case Name:                Hawthorne v. Chateau Mariwood, LLC

Case No.:                    23STCV00546

Matter:                        Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Vernon Hawthorne

Opposing Party:          None

            This is a habitability action. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff Vernon Hawthorne (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Chateau Mariwood, LLC and Winstar Properties, LLC, alleging fourteen (14) causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Nuisance; (5) Trespass; (6) Tenant Harassment I Violation of the Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; (7) Wrongful Eviction in Violation of the Los Angeles Rent Ordinance; (8) Constructive Eviction; (9) Unlawful Demand & Collection of Rent; (10) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; (11) Bad Faith Retention of Security Deposit; (12) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (13) Negligent Hiring, and Supervision or Retention of Employee; and, (14) Declaratory & Injunctive Relief.       

Then, on March 24, 2025, Plaintiff Vernon Hawthorne filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. No opposition was filed.  

The motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted.

Legal Standard

            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 based on a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same case. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Thus, 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 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.)

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).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to make several changes, including adding several defendants and new factual allegations pertaining to Plaintiff’s damages after suffering the constructive eviction. (Astanehe Decl., ¶ 3.)

            The proposed FAC intends to add Defendants 837 Normandie 2019, LP, Artstone, LLC, Dover Management Corporation, Lenox Properties, Inc., Normandie Linden, LLC, Prime/Park Labrea Titleholder, LLC, Prime Residential, LLC, and Step Up On Second Street, Inc., which are all landlords or property managers. Additionally, the proposed FAC also seeks to add allegations pertaining to the harm and damages Plaintiff suffered in his four (4) tenancies after being wrongfully and constructively evicted.

In moving for relief, Plaintiff argues that no prejudice will result form this motion. In the absence of any opposition, no prejudice has been shown to warrant denying this motion even considering the upcoming trial on August 4, 2025.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint within 3 court days.