Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV24668, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24668    Hearing Date: December 31, 2024    Dept: 74

Seneviratne v. Avanzado et al.

Plaintiff Saman Seneviratne’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

BACKGROUND 

            Plaintiff Saman Seneviratne, individually and as a trustee of the Seneviratne Family Residence Trust of 2018 (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Melvin Avanzado, Abigania Avanzado, The Avanzado Law Firm, Kirsch & Jansen, LLP (Defendants). In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged breach of written contract of Plaintiff’s right to purchase 2601 Basil Lane. (the Property). On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

            Because Plaintiff’s proposed amendments allege facts that occurred after Plaintiff filed the original complaint, Plaintiff’s proposed new pleading is in fact a supplemental complaint, not an amended complaint. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 464; see also Rutter Civil Proc. Before Trial 6:791 et seq.) In principle, the distinction between an amended complaint and supplemental complaint matters because, among other things, different rules apply concerning new causes of action and the effect the supplemental complaint has on the original complaint. That distinction does not matter here, however, for the pending motion because the same liberal standard applies to the Court’s review of the proposed pleading whether it is an amended or supplemental complaint. Plaintiff seeks to (1) add a third cause of action for breach of contract; (2) add a fourth cause of action for fraud/constructive fraud; (3) add punitive damages to the prayer; (4) make factual corrections based on the foreclosure and change of facts; and (5) correct punctuation errors.

Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff fails to plead a claim for breach of contract; (2) fails to plead a claim for fraud; and, (3) improperly seeks punitive damages and attorney’s fees.  Defendant’s opposition is unavailing because the grounds Defendant raises are more appropriately asserted by demurrer or a motion to strike. Trial is set for November 24, 2025. Given that Defendant does not show prejudice from the new pleading, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint.

            Plaintiff to give notice.