Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 21CHCV00269, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 21CHCV00269    Hearing Date: May 14, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 3/13/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Kelly Condon and Caroline Condon (“Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants” or “Condons”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Ryan Culver Ealing and Adriana Velasquesz Vacca (“Defendants/Cross-Complainants” or “Ealing/Vacca”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants leave to file their Third Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute between neighboring landowners regarding the existence, use, maintenance, and control of an easement (as defined below, the “West Disputed Easement”). Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants are the owners of 35646 Dormer Road, Agua Dulce 91390 (the “Condon Property”). The legal description of the Condon Property provides that it is comprised of “Parcel 3 of Map No. 8384." (Condons Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. “A”). Parcel Map 8384 shows a 30-foot-wide strip of the westerly boundary of the Condon Property delineated as “Dormer (Private and Future Street) Road” for use by the owners of real property in Parcel Map 8384 (the “East Easement” which is not in dispute). (Id., Ex. “C.”) Defendants/Cross-Complainants Ealing/Vacca are the owners of 9505 Hierba Road, Agua Dulce 91390 (the “Ealing/Vacca Property”). (Condons Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. “B”). The top northeasterly boundary of the Ealing/Vacca Property adjoins almost the entirety of the westerly boundary of the Condon Property. (Id., Ex. “C.”) Per the legal description of the Ealing/Vacca Property on their 2019 deed, it is “Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 10382.” Parcel Map No. 10382 shows a 30-foot-wide strip of the easterly boundary of the Ealing/Vacca Property delineated as “Dormer (Private and Future Street) Road” for the owners of real property in Parcel Map 10382 (“West Disputed Easement”). (Condons Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. “D”).

On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants initiated this action against Defendants/Cross-Complainants and Does 1 through 10. The original Complaint alleged causes of action for (1) Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, (2) Nuisance, (3) Abatement of Interference and Obstruction of Private/Public Easement, and (4) Abatement of Private/Public Nuisance - Change in Grading of Adjoining Property Causing Water, Soil and Debris Deposits on Plaintiffs’ Property.

On July 1, 2021, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed a First Amended Complaint, containing the following causes of action: (1) Interference with Easement, (2) Nuisance, (3) Abatement of Nuisance, and (4) Declaratory Relief. Subsequently, on March 20, 2022, the Department F47 Court overruled Ealing/Vacca’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and granted their motion to strike with 20 days leave to amend. (See 3/20/22 Minute Order).

On May 20, 2022, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Ealing/Vacca filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against the Condons, alleging: (1) Quiet Title, (2) Declaratory Relief, (3) Trespass, and (4) Damages to Trees.

On July 12, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Condons filed their operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging: (1) Interference with Easement, (2) Nuisance, (3) Abatement of Nuisance, (4) Declaratory Relief and (5) Negligence. Subsequently, on August 17, 2022, Ealing/Vacca filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.

            On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the July 17, 2023, trial date and all related pre-trial dates, which was subsequently granted by the Department F47 Court on May 12, 2023. (See 5/12/23 Minute Order).

            On September 11, 2023, the Department F47 Court granted Ealing/Vacca’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, enjoining the Condons from: (1) Traversing in any manner onto, over or through the 30 foot wide strip of the easterly boundary of RYAN CULVER EALING and ADRIANA VELASQUEZ VACCA’s real property located at 9505 Hierba Road, Agua Dulce 91390 (“EALING/VACCA PROPERTY”), except for (a) the portion of the EALING/VACCA PROPERTY upon which there currently exists Hierba Road as designated on the survey referred to in the prior stipulation proposed by RYAN CULVER EALING and ADRIANA VELASQUEZ VACCA and attached hereto as Exh. 1, and (b) the portion of the EALING/VACCA PROPERTY designated on the same survey as “Garbage Truck Turn Around Area.” (2) Performing any maintenance to, making any improvements to, or removing any items or improvements from any portion of the EALING/VACCA PROPERTY. (3) Removing, cutting or trimming in any manner the plants or trees on the EALING/VACCA PROPERTY or that belong to RYAN CULVER EALING and ADRIANA VELASQUEZ VACCA.” (See 9/11/23 Minute Order.) A Court Order Re Preliminary Injunction was entered on September 12, 2023 (the 9/12/23 Preliminary Injunction Order).

            On March 13, 2024, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on May 1, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Opposition. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants replied on May 7, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides in pertinent part, “The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” Trial courts have discretion to permit amendments, which should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments to promote the judicial policy to resolve all disputed matters in one lawsuit. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047. “But this policy applies only [w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175 (Melican), quotation marks omitted.)

“Moreover, even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 175, quotation marks omitted.)

A.    Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants request the Court take Judicial Notice of the following records based on the authorities under Evidence Code sections 452 and 453, and California Rules of Court, rules 3.1113(1) and 3.1306(c):

1.      Grant Deed from Daniel James Bruce Walliser and Kari Molbach Walliser to Kelly Condon and Caroline Condon recorded in Los Angeles County on April 19, 2002. (Condons’ Ex. List, Ex. “A.”)

2.      Grant Deed to Ryan Culver Ealing and Adriana Velasquez Vacca recorded on June 26, 2019. (Id., Ex. “B.”)

3. Parcel Map 8384 filed on January 17, 1979. (Id., Ex. “C.”)

4. Parcel Map 10382 filed on March 23, 1979. (Id., Ex. “D.”)

5. Assessor’s Map 3213, Page 30, filed on May 8, 1994. (Id., Ex. “E.”)

6. Second Amended Complaint filed in Kelly Condon, et al. vs. Ryan Culver Ealing, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 21CHCV00269 on July 12, 2022. (Id., Ex. “F.”)

7. Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed in Kelly Condon, et al. vs. Ryan Culver Ealing, et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 21CHCV00269 on August 17, 2023. (Id., Ex. “G.”)

            The Court GRANTS the Request for Judicial Notice of the above-listed documents.

B.     Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint

The Condons seek the Court’s leave to file the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), adding a Sixth Cause of Action for “Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief” for the uses and maintenance of the easement described as “for road, public or private utilities, drainage or other incidental purposes over the southerly thirty (30) feet of the Ealing/Vacca Property, part of Hierba Road (the “Hierba Road Easement”), among other related changes.  (See Condons’ Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. “A”)

The Condons explain the difference between the SAC and the TAC, asserting that the issue in the SAC is Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ interference with the West Disputed Easement, whereas the TAC’s added Sixth Cause of Action concerns disputes over rights to the Hierba Road Easement. (Mot., at p. 3.)

1)      Unwarranted Delay

The Condons argue that there is no unwarranted delay in their filing of the Motion as they brought the instant Motion as soon as reasonably practicable. (Mot., at p. 6.) However, the Court finds this assertion to be unsupported by uncontradicted facts.

The Condons assert that the basis of the new claim, the Sixth Cause of Action in the proposed TAC, is based on a set of facts including that Defendants/Cross-Complainants allegedly encroached on the Hierba Road Easement by placing rocks, planting cacti, and allowing trees and other plants to grow over the Hierba Road Easement. (Mot., at p. 6, Caroline Condon Decl., ¶ 6.) However, the Condons note that this alleged encroachment occurred “in or about 2020” (Reply, at p. 5), predating the filing of the initial Complaint on April 6, 2021, and the SAC on July 12, 2022.

Consequently, the Condons delayed asserting the claim for more than three years, or should have included it in their SAC, constituting a delay for almost two years. The Court does not find the delay to be excusable.

The Condons make an incomplete argument that the delay was due to the mediation efforts between the parties, resulting in their hope to avoid bringing the Motion as the parties seemed to move towards mediation. (Mot., at p. 7, Caroline Condon Decl., ¶ 7.) However, this argument is based on a conclusory statement and does not support a finding that either the mediation concerns to any extent the Hierba Road Easement as opposed to the West Disputed Easement, or that the Condons justifiably relied on Ealing/Vacca’s promise to resolve the alleged dispute over the Hierba Road Easement through mediation. Contrarily, Ealing/Vacca maintain, in their Opposition, that “[a]t no time have EALING/VACCA denied the CONDONS’ (or the public’s) right to use the easement nor are EALING/VACCA encroaching on the Hierba Road Easement.” (Opp’n., at p. 2.) The Condons do not contest that Ealing/Vacca’s position has ever changed over the period of the proceeding.

Consequently, the Court finds that the Condons’s argument that their delay was due to reliance on the mediation process is not supported by factual showing substantiating their claim, thus not persuasive in justifying the delay.

Furthermore, the Condons contend, in their Reply, that the Motion was brought as reasonably practicable as the use and maintenance of Hierba Road Easement did not become an issue until the Court issue its preliminary injunction in September 2023. (Reply, at p. 3.)

The 9/12/23 Preliminary Injunction Order, issued by the Department F47 Court, specifies that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants are enjoined from, among other things: “¶ (1) Traversing in any manner onto, over or through the 30 foot wide strip of the easterly boundary of RYAN CULVER EALING and ADRIANA VELASQUEZ VACCA’s real property located at 9505 Hierba Road, Agua Dulce 91390 (“EALING/VACCA PROPERTY”), except for (a) the portion of the EALING/VACCA PROPERTY upon which there currently exists Hierba Road as designated on the survey referred to in the prior stipulation proposed by RYAN CULVER EALING and ADRIANA VELASQUEZ VACCA and attached hereto as Exh. 1, and (b) the portion of the EALING/VACCA PROPERTY designated on the same survey as ‘Garbage Truck Turn Around Area.’” (9/12/23 Preliminary Injunction Order.) (Underlines added.) It is evident to the Court that the 9/12/23 Preliminary Injunction Order considers the existence of the Hierba Road Easement, and does not by itself disregard the Condons’ right therein.

Additionally, the 9/11/23 Minute Order explicitly highlights that “[a]s noted in the Court’s 8/19/21 ruling on the Condons’ request for a preliminary injunction, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. [citing Continental Baking Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528 and SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, 280.]” (9/11/23 Minute Order.) Accordingly, the parties’ adherence to the Preliminary Injunction Order cannot be construed as a denial of any party’s rights that needs to be adjudicated by a separate cause of action.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Condons have failed to present an excusable explanation of their unwarranted delay in adding the Sixth Cause of Action.

2)      Prejudice to the Opposing Party

The Condons argue that should the Motion be granted, Defendants/Cross-Complainants will not be prejudiced. (Mot., at p. 7.) In response, Ealing/Vacca contend that the amendment would require a continuance of the July 8, 2024 Trial, increased costs of preparation and burden of discovery. (Opp’n., at p. 6.)

            In their Reply, the Condons state, “Prejudice exists where amendment would require delaying trial, along with the loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, and increased burden of discovery. [citing Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 (Magpali).]” (Reply, at p. 8.) Nevertheless, the Condons maintain that no prejudice exists as they do not seek to continue the trial and that they do not object to a brief continuance of the trial. (Ibid.)

            The Court agrees with the Condons’ citation of legal standards outlined in Magpali; however, it rejects their application in finding none or insignificant prejudice based on their subjective intention. Given that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants seek to add a new cause of action that is unrelated to the operative SAC – as opposed to “finishing telling the story begun in the original complaint” – the Court determines that prejudice exists when a near trial date is objectively reasonable to be continued and new discovery and additional costs in defending the suit will be incurred by Defendants/Cross-Complainants. (Cf. Honig v. Financial Corp. of America, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 966, [“The proposed amendments finished telling the story begun in the original complaint. The added assertions described the continuation of the events asserted in the initial pleading . . . . Appellant was fully deposed on these issues. Thus, no prejudice would have resulted had the amendments been permitted.”])

            Based on the above, the Court exercises its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, and DENIES the Motion for Leave to Amend.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice of this order.