Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV17000, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17000    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from allegedly uninhabitable conditions. The complaint, filed May 5, 2021, asserts causes of action for (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability, (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) negligence, (5) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, and (6) private nuisance.

            On February 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a cause of action for violation of Long Beach Ordinance No. 20-0044, which prohibits tenant harassment and makes it unlawful for a landlord to fail to timely repair or maintain a premises.

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

            The ordinance that Plaintiffs rely on was enacted in November 2020, and Plaintiffs initiated this action in May 2021. Therefore, Plaintiffs could have alleged a violation of the ordinance from the outset, since Plaintiffs were already asserting causes of action based on Defendant’s alleged failure to abate uninhabitable conditions.

Plaintiffs claim that they discovered through a public records request in January 2023 that Defendant had been cited by the City of Long Beach for unspecified violations that were not repaired until October 2022. (Christensen Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs additionally claim that their counsel and experts conducted inspections of the subject property in December 2022 and discovered that many of the habitability issues alleged in the complaint had not been fixed. (Ibid.)

However, none of this explains why the ordinance violation was not asserted in the original complaint. Plaintiffs have alleged from the outset that Defendant failed to abate uninhabitable conditions. Plaintiffs do not explain why they had to wait until the discovery of additional citations and issues before asserting a violation of Ordinance No. 20-0044. The ordinance would have applied even before the new discovery.

The trial has already been continued twice and is currently set for May 2023. Allowing Plaintiffs to amend the complaint on the eve of trial would prejudice Defendant. Defendant will not have sufficient time to complete discovery on the new claims unless trial is delayed yet again. Defendant would also have to bear the costs of additional discovery. An amendment is properly denied “when offered after long unexplained delay or on the eve of trial . . . .” (Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 24, 41.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is DENIED.