Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2021-00009105-CU-OR-NC, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00009105-CU-OR-NC BLAIS VS MATKALUK [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to Amend, 12/18/2023

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Richard Matkaluk and Constance Matkaluk (collectively, 'Cross-Complainants')'s motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint (the 'FACC') is denied.

The court has discretion to allow an amendment to the pleadings under California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 473(a)(1) 'in furtherance of justice,' and 'upon any terms as may be just.' See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 473(a)(1). CCP § 576 likewise grants the court discretion to allow amendment of a pleading 'at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper.' See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 576. California generally has a liberal policy of allowing amendments to pleadings at any stage of a case. See Douglas v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 155, 158; Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 474, 488 [' '[A]bsent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail.' [Citation omitted.],' quoting Board of Trustees v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1163].) A motion for leave to amend may be denied based on futility where the insufficiency of the pleading is clear on the face of the pleading under controlling authority, and any deficiency cannot be cured by further amendment, such as when it is clear on the face of the pleading that the statute of limitations has expired. See Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1429 (affirming an order denying leave to amend made in the damages phase of a case with an extended history, where the amendment was proposed two years after the case commenced, and where the new claims on their face were legally barred); Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 217, 230 (proposed amendment barred by statute of limitations and no basis for 'relation back'); Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1124 (denial of leave to amend petition for writ of mandate affirmed because amended claim barred by statute of limitations). In this case, the court must conclude that the proposed amendment is futile and, therefore, the request for leave to file a FACC must be denied.

More specifically, Cross-Complainants seek leave to file an amended pleading adding sixteen purportedly 'similarly situated property owners' or 'SSPO(s)' to a newly proposed declaratory relief claim. See FACC, ¶¶ 4, 171-177. Cross-Complainants contend, in essence, that '[a]n actual controversy has arisen and exists between the Matkaluk's [sic] and Cross-Defendants SSPO concerning their respective rights, obligations and liabilities relating to trees and other landscaping on the SSPO properties within the HOA.' Ibid., ¶ 177. The allegations, however, do not reveal an actual controversy between Cross-Complainants and the SSPOs, which is the necessary predicate for a declaratory relief claim. In particular, CCP § 1060 provides: Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051791 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BLAIS VS MATKALUK [IMAGED]  37-2021-00009105-CU-OR-NC Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural channel of a watercourse, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1060 (emphasis added). In sum, '[t]he fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject.' City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79 (quoting 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 817, p. 273; Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 647). In furtherance of this point, CCP § 1061 authorizes a court to refuse to grant declaratory relief in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances. See Coronado Cays Homeowners Assn. v. City of Coronado (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 602, 607; Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1061. Such a determination involves a 'balancing of the equities.' See Symington v. City of Albany (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 23, 27.

In this case, Cross-Complainants do not seek any relief against the newly proposed cross-defendants or any declaration of rights vis-à-vis each other. Consequently, the FACC does not allege an actual, present controversy between and/or among themselves and the SSPO(s). To be clear, it appears that Cross-Complainants' proposed amendment is based on the premise that because other homeowners may be in the same position as Cross-Complainants, namely having landscaping that may be affected by the CC&R(s), and potentially could be affected by an interpretation of the CC&R(s) that may be involved in the resolution of the pending dispute between and among them, the Blaises, and Brentwood Heights Homeowners Association, the SSPOs, in essence, are indispensable parties. Toward this point, Cross-Complainants argue '[t]his amendment is necessary and proper to ensure that all similarly situated property owners are treated equally within the HOA and that the Matkaluk's [sic] not be singled out and discriminated against by unequal treatment by the HOA Board of Directors, of which Plaintiff is a member.' See Cross-Complainants' Memorandum, p. 8, ll. 1-4. Pertinent legal authority, however, dictates a different outcome. See e.g., Duffey v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 425 (writ of mandate granted directing trial court to grant motion for judgment on pleadings filed by neighbors complaining about property owner's proposed improvement who were named as defendants by homeowners association); Leonard Corp. v. City of San Diego (1962) 210 Cal. App. 2d 547; Lushing v. Riviera Estates Assn. (1961) 196 Cal. App. 2d 687 (all lot owners in an association need not be joined in a dispute between a specific lot owner and the homeowner association because all lot owners' participation in lawsuit was not necessary to a complete determination of the controversy).

In sum, because there is no actual, present controversy between Cross-Complainants and the SSPO(s), and because the SSPO(s)' presence in this lawsuit is not necessary for a complete determination about the applicability of the CC&R(s) to Cross-Complainants' trees/landscaping, Cross-Complainants' proposed declaratory relief claim against the SSPO(s) cannot survive a challenge and, therefore, an amendment including such a claim would be futile.

In light of the foregoing, the court denies Cross-Complainants' motion for leave to file a FACC.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, January 12, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 12, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051791 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BLAIS VS MATKALUK [IMAGED]  37-2021-00009105-CU-OR-NC Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051791