Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00209, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00209    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Atlantic Times Square X, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Atlantic Times Square X, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action on April 8, 2022 against Defendant Yummy Garden, Inc. (“Yummy Garden”). On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint to allege that Yummy Garden had surrendered the subject property so that possession was no longer at issue. The First Amended Complaint also added various personal guarantors of the subject lease as individual defendants and asserted claims for damages against Yummy Garden and the individual defendants.

            Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a second amended complaint to revise the allegations and clarify that damages are being sought pursuant to four discrete causes of action: breach of contract, breach of personal guaranty, open book account, and account stated.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.”  Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The 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 (internal citations omitted).) “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….”  (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.134(b).)

DISCUSSION

The court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the procedural requirements associated with the motion. The court also finds that the defendants, who have yet to be served, will not be prejudiced by the amendments.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

The court orders that the Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 24, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court