Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV31133, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31133    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 22, 2022, various Plaintiffs filed this habitability action against Defendants Quo Vadis Apartment Company, Ltd. and L’Abri Enterprises, Inc.

            On February 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. Defendants filed their opposition on March 3, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their reply on March 13, 2025.

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(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.)

A motion for leave to amend a complaint must be accompanied by a declaration that explains: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(b).)

DISCUSSION

            “When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint . . . and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.) “For this rule to apply, it is necessary that the plaintiff actually be ignorant of the name or identity of the fictitiously named defendant at the time the complaint is filed.” (Hazel v. Hewlett (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1458, 1464.) For purposes of Section 474, a plaintiff is considered “ignorant of the name of a defendant” if the plaintiff either is ignorant of the defendant’s identity, or is ignorant of the facts giving rise to liability against the defendant. (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 563, 579; Snoke v. Bolen (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1427, 1431.)

Plaintiffs seek to add L’Abri Mananagement, Inc. as a defendant. Plaintiffs’ counsel avers that during the deposition of Defendants’ PMK (Ronald Kolar) on February 4, 2025, they discovered that L’Abri Management is separate and distinct from Defendant L’Abri Enterprises. (Anand Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs discovered that L’Abri Management is also owned and operated by Mr. Kolar, is responsible for maintenance of the subject property, and employs the same agents as the named Defendants. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs therefore argue that L’Abri Management is an essential party to the action and seek to add it as a Doe. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) The proposed FAC adds L’Abri Management as a defendant, adds some background allegations, and adds alter ego allegations. (Id., Ex. B.)

            In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have known of L’Abri Management’s involvement since May 2023, when Defendants responded to an interrogatory identifying L’Abri Management as an entity hired to manage the subject property, and produced a management agreement showing the same. However, Plaintiffs did not discover the basis for liability until the PMK deposition on February 4, 2025. (Anand Decl. ¶ 4.) A plaintiff’s obligation to amend the complaint to name a Doe defendant is not triggered until both the identity of the new defendant and the facts giving rise to liability against that defendant are known. (San Diego, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at p. 579; Snoke, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1431.)

            Defendants also argue that it would be prejudiced because L’Abri Management is a distinct entity with its own corporate structure. Defendants claim that substantial additional discovery would be needed and witnesses would need to be re-deposed. However, given the common ownership and operation of L’Abri Management with the other Defendants, along with the fact that liability against L’Abri Management is based on the same underlying facts and transactions, it appears unlikely that the addition of L’Abri Management will lead to substantial additional burdens. The current trial date of September 9, 2025 leaves sufficient time for necessary discovery, and a trial continuance is possible should more time be needed. The Court does not find sufficient prejudice to justify denying leave to amend.  

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Amended Complaint shall be filed within 10 days of this order.