Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22SMCV01756, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01756    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Meeghan H. Tirtasaputra, trustee of MPRAT Trust Dated January 7, 2021 (“Plaintiff”) brought this unlawful detainer action seeking to take possession of real property located at 3852 McLaughlin Avenue in Los Angeles, California, which Plaintiff acquired the property at a foreclosure sale. The issue of possession was adjudicated in Plaintiff’s favor at a bench trial held on November 7, 2022, and was awarded possession of the property. Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to file a First Amended Complaint to seek holdover damages from Defendants. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.

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).)

Analysis

Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful detainer was tried to the Court on November 7, 2022. The Court found in Plaintiff’s favor and awarded Plaintiff possession of the property. Judgment was entered for Plaintiff on December 15, 2022. Plaintiff took possession of the property on January 31, 2023. Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to file a First Amended Complaint to seek holdover damages. Plaintiff’s motion complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Plaintiff states this request to amend was not made sooner because its damages were not made certain until Defendants relinquished possession of the property on January 31, 2023. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.