Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 21CHCV00970, Date: 2024-08-21 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: 21CHCV00970    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 8/8/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lamonte Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Johnson”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Lion Technologies, LLC, and Rehabbers Financial, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Financial and d/b/a Investors First Choice, and Henderson (See Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654. [by joining the Opposition (2024/8/13 Notice of Joinder), Henderson adopts and incorporates by reference all arguments presented therein. Consequently, the Court regards Henderson as also being a responding party, seeking relief on his own behalf, and will be bound by the Court’s ruling on the instant Motion.])

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff’s leave to file his First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a quiet title action, arising out of an alleged fraudulent deed and a dispute over the real property at 10525 Gothic Avenue, Granada Hills, CA 91344 (the “Property”).

On December 21, 20221, Plaintiff filed the operative verified Complaint against Defendants Lion Henderson (“Henderson”), Lion Technologies, LLC (“Lion Tech”), and Rehabbers Financial, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Financial and Investors First Choice (“Rehabbers”), and Does 1 to 100, alleging six causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Quiet Title, (3) Cancellation of Grant Deed, (4) Cancellation of Deed of Trust, (5) Fraud, and (6) Slander of Title. Subsequently, Lion Tech, Rehabbers, and Henderson filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on January 20, February 2, and July 21, 2022, respectively.

 On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on August 8, 2024, Defendants Lion Tech and Rehabbers filed their Opposition to the Motion. Following this, Defendant Handerson filed a Notice of Joinder to the Opposition on August 13, 2024.

No Reply papers have been received by the Court.

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.” Code of Civil Procedure section 576, likewise, provides that “any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment to any pleading . . .” The determination of whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading rests in the court’s sound discretion. 

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.) Prejudice exists where an amendment to a complaint would result in a delay of trial; loss of critical evidence; added costs of preparation; and increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1986) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) “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.)

Motions for leave to amend must also meet certain procedural requirements. For instance, California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a) requires that the motion “(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” 

Additionally, California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b) requires that the declaration in support of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint must state: “(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.” 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint does not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff’s motion does not clearly state why the motion is necessary and proper. Nor does the Motion state when the facts were discovered or the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Given that the case commenced on December 21, 2021, more than two and a half years ago, the Court deems Plaintiff’s compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b) is critical to justify there is no untimely delay. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion asserts that the proposed new cause of action is based on the “same general set of facts” as the original Complaint, which does not support an inference that the Motion should be granted because any new facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered subsequent to the filing of the Complaint.

Moreover, Plaintiff argues that the amendment would not violate any statute of limitations as the Relation Back Doctrine applies. However, Plaintiff’s reliance on the statute of limitations and Relation Back Doctrine does not fulfill this requirement under California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b).

In their Opposition, Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced by the filing of the First Amended Complaint. They contend that Plaintiff has concurrently filed a motion for preference seeking a trial date set in December 2024. Given the likelihood that the motion will be granted, Defendants argue that the case may not be at issue as they anticipate filing demurrers to the proposed First Amended Complaint. Additionally, Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced by being unable to complete discovery regarding the new cause of action, and their anticipated motion for summary adjudication on the new cause of action will not be heard until after the new trial date. (Opp’n. at p. 4.)

Given that no Reply has been filed by Plaintiff, the issues raised in Defendants’ Opposition are effectively unchallenged.

Based on the above, the Court DENIES the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to File First Amended Complaint.is DENIED.

Moving party to provide notice of this order.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR PREFERENCE

Motion filed: 8/8/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lamonte Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Johnson”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Lion Technologies, LLC, and Rehabbers Financial, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Financial and d/b/a Investors First Choice, and Henderson (See Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654. [by joining the Opposition (2024/8/9 Notice of Joinder), Henderson adopts and incorporates by reference all arguments presented therein. Consequently, the Court regards Henderson as also being a responding party, seeking relief on his own behalf, and will be bound by the Court’s ruling on the instant Motion.])

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preference and advance the Trial date within 120 days of this hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a quiet title action, arising out of an alleged fraudulent deed and a dispute over the real property at 10525 Gothic Avenue, Granada Hills, CA 91344 (the “Property”).

On December 21, 20221, Plaintiff filed the operative verified Complaint against Defendants Lion Henderson (“Henderson”), Lion Technologies, LLC (“Lion Tech”), and Rehabbers Financial, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Financial and Investors First Choice (“Rehabbers”), and Does 1 to 100, alleging six causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Quiet Title, (3) Cancellation of Grant Deed, (4) Cancellation of Deed of Trust, (5) Fraud, and (6) Slander of Title. Subsequently, Lion Tech, Rehabbers, and Henderson filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on January 20, February 2, and July 21, 2022, respectively.

 On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Preference (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on August 6, 2024, Defendants Lion Tech and Rehabbers filed their Opposition to the Motion, and Plaintiff replied on August 7, 2024. Following this, Defendant Handerson filed a Notice of Joinder to the Opposition on August 9, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (c), “unless the court otherwise orders: (1) A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared. (2) At any time during the pendency of the action, a party who reaches 70 years of age may file and serve a motion for preference.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion

grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies

the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (e).)

“Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for

trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond

120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability

of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.

Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance

for physical disability may be granted to any party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)

            Here, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that Plaintiff will be 90 years old by the time of the hearing on this Motion, and that all parties have been served with process or appeared in the case. Plaintiff seeks the Court’s discretion in granting the motion for preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivisions (c), (e), and (f).

            In Opposition, Defendants argue that a trial date in December 2024, as sought by Plaintiff in the Motion, would be prejudicial to Defendants and is impractical. Specifically, they argue that they anticipated filing responsive pleadings to Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint. However, given that the Court has determined to deny Plaintiff’s motion to file a First Amended Complaint, it concludes that Defendants’ argument regarding potential prejudice is moot.

          In Reply, Plaintiff stated that throughout the proceedings of this action, he has agreed to numerous continuances despite his desire to expedite the resolution of this case. With the current trial date set over a year away, he seeks preference due to his advanced age. Plaintiff asserts that he has not lacked diligence in pursuing this matter in any way or at any stage. (Reply at pp. 4-5.)

            Based on the above records, the Court, in its discretion, finds that the interests of justice are best served by granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preference.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is Granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preference is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice of this order.