Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV21243, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21243    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from alleged habitability issues. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel Bedingfield filed the complaint against Defendant Jeremy Braud, alleging (1) negligence, (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (3) constructive eviction, and (4) failure to refund deposit.

            On November 13, 2020, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) negligence, and (4) fraudulent concealment. The cross-complaint alleges that Plaintiff made unpermitted alterations to the premises, rented out to subtenants without authorization, and left the premises in deplorable condition.

            On August 29, 2022, Defendant and Cross-Complainant filed the instant motion for leave to amend the cross-complaint to: (1) eliminate the causes of action for negligence and fraud; (2) add a cause of action for waste; and (3) restate and clarify certain facts.   

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.) In determining the extent of prejudice to the opposing party, the court must consider various factors, such as whether the amendment would delay trial or increase the discovery burden. (Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 306.)

DISCUSSION

            Defense counsel explains that he discovered the facts giving rise to the amendment upon familiarizing himself with the casefile after replacing Defendant’s prior counsel. (Staub Decl. ¶ 18.) Absent a showing of prejudice, the amendment should be permitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied due to Defendant’s delay in seeking the amendment and the drastic change in issues shortly before trial.

            However, Defendant’s new counsel sought the amendment promptly upon discovering the pertinent facts. The cross-complaint remains premised on the same general set of facts and alleged misconduct, even if Defendant’s theory of recovery has changed. Amendments may be made at any stage of the proceedings, including after trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 576), and trial for this matter is set for February 2023. The Court finds minimal prejudice to Plaintiff, which does not justify depriving Defendant of the opportunity to assert a claim that has merit. To the extent more time is needed for discovery, the trial can be continued.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jeremy Braud’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. First Amended Cross-Complaint shall be filed within 10 days.