Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV36899, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36899    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This quiet title action was initiated in November 22, 2022. On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Phuong Le Thai and Edward Lee filed the operative Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Diana Lee, William Truong, and all persons claiming interest in the subject property located in El Monte (the Property). The SAC asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, quiet title, fraud, conversion, elder abuse, accounting, relief from voidable transaction, and conspiracy.  

            According to the SAC, Plaintiff Phuong Le Thai (Phuong) wished to purchase the Property but failed to qualify for a loan. (SAC ¶ 11.) Around July or August 2017, Phuong proposed that her daughter, Defendant Diana Lee (Diana) purchase the Property in her name and hold legal title without assuming any obligations such as down payment, maintenance expenses, property taxes, and loan payments. (Id., ¶ 12.) Diana allegedly agreed to this arrangement and promised to convey title to Phuong once Phuong had paid all expenses related to the maintenance and preservation of the Property for a period of time sufficient to demonstrate her credit worthiness. (Id., ¶ 13.) Diana obtained title to the Property on September 14, 2017. (Id., ¶ 15.) The down payment was made using loans and gifts belonging to Phuong. (Ibid.) In June 2021, after Phuong had possessed the Property and paid the associated expenses for several years, Phuong demanded that Diana convey title to the Property to her in accordance with their agreement, but Diana refused. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17.)

Phuong was married to John Shing Lee (John Lee or Decedent), who died in September 2022. Decedent’s son, Plaintiff Edward Lee, pursues this action as Decedent’s successor-in-interest. The FAC alleges that Diana stole the following property: (1) Decedent’s portion of proceeds from the sale of Plaintiffs’ other residences in Nevada and California; (2) Decedent’s cash; (3) proceeds from Decedent’s life insurance policy; (4) and a 2006 Honda Pilot. (SAC ¶¶ 18-37.) Defendant William Truong, Diana’s husband, allegedly participated in the fraud and conversion.

On September 16, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the third cause of action for quiet title and on Plaintiffs’ claim for damages based on the purchase of two cemetery plots.

On October 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendants filed their opposition on October 29, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 1, 2024.

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.)

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

The proposed TAC adds causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Lew Decl., Ex. 2.) The underlying facts remain largely identical, as the primary basis of Plaintiffs’ claims has always been the alleged oral agreement between Phuong and Diana. Plaintiffs simply did not assert a breach of contract cause of action in the previous complaints.

Plaintiffs’ counsel avers that he discovered the absence of contract claims in August or September 2024, during trial preparation for the trial previously scheduled for September 13, 2024. (Lew Decl. at 13:19-25.) Counsel avers that he did not notice the absence of the contract claims before then. (Id. at 13:28-14:2.) The trial has since been continued to May 27, 2025. The amendments are necessary and proper to have all related causes of action before the Court and jury. (Id. at 13:11-15.)

The Court finds good cause for the amendment. The contract claims are based on the same facts as the existing causes of action. The facts remain practically unchanged because Plaintiffs have always alleged that Phuong formed an oral agreement with Diana. Thus, the addition of the contract claims does not prejudice Defendants, especially given the continued trial date.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file third amended complaint is GRANTED.