Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21SMCV01059, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21SMCV01059 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: 207
Background
This action concerns the real property located at 1870 Old
Topanga Canyon Road, Topanga, California 90290. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff
Jessica Jacobs (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Steven Ray
Ritchie (“Defendant”) for injunctive relief, quiet title, declaratory relief,
trespass, nuisance, and ejectment. Plaintiff contends she and her husband are
sole owners of the property, which they lawfully purchased from the former
owner, Lauren Ivester (“Ivester”), Plaintiff contends Defendant is improperly
occupying the property, claiming to have a valid interest in the property by
virtue of a lease agreement between himself and Ivester entered into prior to
the sale of the property to Plaintiff. On July 26, 2021, Defendant filed a
Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, asserting causes of action for quiet title,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, trespass, nuisance, breach of contract,
and specific performance.
In a related action between the parties, Case No.
21STCV40908, the Court adjudicated the issue of possession at a bench trial on
Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful detainer. The Court found for Plaintiff and on
December 16, 2022, entered judgment in her favor on her claim for unlawful
detainer.
On February 22, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion
to expunge the lis pendens in this action recorded against the property by
Defendant. Defendant now moves for reconsideration of that order expunging his
lis pendens. Defendant also moves for leave to file an amended Cross-Complaint
which adds additional allegations, a new cause of action, and substitutes a new
individual defendant in place of a Doe defendant. Defendant’s motions are
unopposed. In the interest of convenience, the Court will address these two
motions together.
Legal
Standard
Leave to
amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)
and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the
same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to
amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of
great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be
applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . ..
[citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and
probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v.
Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)
A motion
for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements
of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting
declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where,
and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the
amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also
include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications
by reference to pages and lines where allegations would be deleted and added,
and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the
amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)
Code
Civ. Proc. “[s]ection 1008 governs motions for reconsideration, by parties or
the court itself. It is the exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking
an order. (Morite of California v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th
485, 490.) A
motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 must be made "within 10 days
after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.” (C.C.P.
§ 1008(a).) The moving party must present new facts, circumstances or law in
order to grant a motion for reconsideration. (See C.C.P. § 1008(a); see also¿Mink
v. Superior Court¿(1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)
Analysis
1. Leave to
Amend Cross-Complaint
Defendant seeks leave to file a
First Amended Cross-Complaint which adds a cause of action for fraudulent
conveyance, adds more than fifteen paragraphs of background factual
allegations, and substitutes Chantal Von Wetter for a Doe defendant. Defendant
asserts these new facts and legal theories that have come to light through
discovery and in the trial of the related unlawful detainer action 21STCV40908.
Defendant claims no party will be prejudiced by these proposed amendments as
discovery in this action is still in its early stages and there is ample time
to prepare for the scheduled trial on September 26, 2023. Plaintiff does not
oppose Defendant’s motion or otherwise contest these representations.
California follows a liberal
policy of allowing amendments to pleadings as the law favors the resolution of
claims on their merits. The Court finds Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated
good cause for the proposed amendment to his Cross-Complaint and his motion for
leave to amend is GRANTED.
However, the Court notes Defendant
did not attach his proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint to his motion for
leave to amend as required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Instead, Defendant filed
his First Amended Cross-Complaint two days later on March 17, 2023, as
though it were now his operative pleading in this action. Such filing was
technically improper and premature as the Court had not yet ruled on
Defendant’s motion for leave to amend. As the Court has now granted Defendant
leave to amend, the Court finds Defendant’s
proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint, filed March 17, 2023, is now deemed to
have been properly filed with leave of Court as of the date of this order.
Defendant must now effect service of the First Amended Cross-Complaint on all
Cross-Defendants per the service requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Motion
for Reconsideration
Defendant also moves for
reconsideration of the Court’s February 22, 2023, order which granted
Plaintiff’s motion to expunge the lis pendens recorded by Defendant. In
granting Plaintiff’s motion, the Court noted Defendant had the burden under
Code Civ. Proc. § 405.32 to demonstrate “by a preponderance of the evidence the
probable validity” of his claim to the subject property. In finding Defendant
had not carried this burden, the Court noted Defendant had raised the same
arguments in opposition which the Court had already rejected in entering
judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of possession in the related
21STCV40908 unlawful detainer action. The Court also noted Defendant had failed
to produce evidence in his opposition which established the probable validity
of his claim:
In the unlawful detainer action, the
Court held Defendant had failed to establish the validity of this claimed
lease, and that even if he had it would not grant him a right to possession of
the property as Plaintiff was a good faith purchaser under Civil Code § 1214.
Defendant has not established the probable validity of a different finding in
the 21SMCV01059 action based on the preponderance of the evidence. Indeed,
Defendant does not offer any evidence in support of his opposition beyond his
own conclusory assertions as to what the evidence at trial will show. The Court
finds this is insufficient to carry his burden under Code Civ. Proc. § 405.32
and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to expunge the lis pendens entered in
the 21SMCV01059 action.
(Order at 4,) In reaching this
result, the Court noted Defendant claimed he would likely prevail on his
cross-claims in this action for fraudulent conveyance, specific performance,
and breach of contract, but that his Cross-Complaint did not actually plead a
cause of action for fraudulent conveyance. (Id. at 3.)
Defendant now argues the Court
must reconsider its ruling expunging the lis pendens because his First Amended
Cross-Complaint now asserts a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance. The
assertion of this claim does not compel reconsideration of the Court’s prior
ruling. The Court’s ruling was based on Defendant’s failure to submit evidence
which showed the probable validity of his claims and not on his failure to
plead a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance. The assertion of a new cause
of action in his Cross-Complaint does not establish the probable validity of
any of his claims by the preponderance of the evidence. Defendant’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for leave to file a First Amended
Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.