Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02223, Date: 2024-03-01 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: 23CHCV02223    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 11/9/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Joy Rhoda Abad, et al. (“Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: none

NOTICE: ok 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court granting Plaintiffs leave to file their Amendment to the Complaint to add two additional plaintiffs Anahi Ramirez-Bernal and Alejandro Lopez.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On July 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants Canyon Country Mobile Home Estates, LLC, and J&H Asset Property MGT., Inc., and Does 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging the following causes of action: (1) nuisance; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) negligence; (5) breach of statutes; (6) breach of warranty of habitability; (7) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (8) breach of unfair competition law; and (9) declaratory and injunctive relief. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, who are current and former residents and/or owners of mobilehomes located in Canyon County Mobile Home Estates, a mobile home park situated at 16274 Vasquez Canyon Rd. Canyon Country, CA 91351 (the “Park”), have suffered damages due to Defendants’ alleged failure to properly manage and maintain the Park.

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Amendment to the Complaint (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on April 2, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted their Reply and Notice of Non-Opposition.

No opposing papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (a), “ The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. 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.”

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 576 provides, “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 of any pleading or pretrial conference order."

A.    Leave to File Amendment to the Complaint

The court, in the interest of justice and under proper terms, may permit a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., sections 473, 576.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b)(3)-(4) [separate declaration accompanying the motion must specify when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier].) The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. (See Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377-78.) If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would unreasonably delay trial, resulting in added costs of preparation and increased discovery burdens, or result in loss of critical evidence. (Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 728, 739; P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345; Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Here, Plaintiffs seek the Court’s permission to amend their Complaint to include two additional plaintiffs Ahahi Ramirez-Bernal and Alejandro Lopez (the “Potential Plaintiffs”). (Mem. of P. & A., at 3.) Plaintiffs present that these two Potential Plaintiffs contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s law firm with the intention to be added to the action after learning of the filing of the Complaint. (Paris Decl., ¶ 5.)

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration states that the Potential Plaintiffs’ claims are the same or similar to those made by the Plaintiffs in this action as they arise from the same alleged failure of Defendants to maintain the Park. (Paris Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs’ counsel has met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel regarding the subject of the instant Motion and proposed stipulation to amend the Complaint. However, Plaintiffs could not agree to Defendants’ proposed revisions to their stipulation, necessitating the filing of the Motion. (Id., ¶¶ 5-10.)

Plaintiffs contend that there is no unreasonable delay in filing the Motion. (Mem. of P. & A., at 5.)

The Court agrees. Here, the original Complaint was filed on July 26, 2023. After being contacted by the Potential Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel has made efforts to meet and confer Defendants’ counsel since October 4, 2023. (Paris Decl., ¶ 7.) Given the failure to reach a stipulation, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on November 9, 2023, less than three months after the filing of the original Complaint. Consequently, the Court determines that there is no unreasonable delay in bringing the Motion.

  Plaintiffs argue that granting the motion would not result in prejudice to the Defendants as they will have sufficient time to conduct any necessary discovery regarding the two Potential Plaintiffs prior to the trial. (Paris Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Given the current stage of the proceedings and no trial dates having been set, the Court identifies no basis for prejudice towards Defendants. On the contrary, the amendment will serve the interests of justice and preclude multiple similar actions involving identical issues of fact and law.

Therefore, the unopposed Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Amendment to the Complaint is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiffs to file the Amendment to Complaint within 10 days.

Moving party to provide notice.