Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV02223, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02223    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 10/17/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Joy Rhoda Abad, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.¿¿¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiffs leave to file their Amendment to the Complaint to add five additional individuals.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an alleged breach of lease resulting from Defendants’ failure to properly manage and maintain the mobilehomes in Canyon Country Mobile Home Estates, a mobilehome park located at 16274 Vasquez Canyon Rd. Canyon Country, CA 91351 (the “Park”).

On July 26, 2023, this action was initiated by Plaintiffs, 59 named individuals at the time, who are current and former residents or owners of the Park.

On April 9, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend complaint to add two additional plaintiffs. Subsequently, on April 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 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 Country 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 17, 2024, Plaintiffs, now 61 named individuals, filed the instant Motion for Order Granting Leave to File Amendment to the Complaint (the “Motion”).

No Opposition 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.)

Plaintiffs seek the Court’s permission to amend their Complaint to include five additional individuals: (1) Reyna Elizabeth Navas Zepeda, (2) Ubaldo Garcia, (3) Maya Harris, (4) Gabriela Ramos, and (5) Zeferino Ramos (collectively, the “Potential Plaintiffs”). (Mem. of P. & A., at p. 2.)

Plaintiffs present that these five 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. (Taylor Decl., ¶ 5.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration states that the Potential Plaintiffs’ claims are the same or similar to those made by Plaintiffs in this action as they arise from the same alleged failure of Defendants to maintain the Park. (Taylor Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs’ counsel has met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Jonoobi and Mr. Wasson, regarding the subject of the instant Motion and proposed stipulation to amend the Complaint. (Id. ¶ 7.) Ms. Jonoobi agreed to the proposed amendment, but Mr. Wasson did not agree. (Id. ¶ 8.)

The Court notes that neither Defendant has filed an Opposition to the Motion.

Plaintiffs state that there is no unreasonable delay in filing the Motion under the circumstances when taking into consideration that no prejudice to Defendants will result. (Mem. of P. & A., at 5.)

Here, the original Complaint was filed on July 26, 2023, with the operative FAC filed on April 19, 2024. After being contacted by the Potential Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel has made efforts to meet and confer Defendants’ counsel since June 24, 2024. (Taylor Decl., ¶ 7.) Given the failure to reach a stipulation, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on October 17, 2024.

Considering the current stage of the proceedings and the circumstances necessitating Plaintiffs’ amendment, the Court finds that there is no unreasonable delay in making the Motion.

Additionally, evidence presented by Plaintiffs shows that limited written discovery has been conducted, no trial date has been set, and there is ample time for Defendants to conduct any discovery relating to them.

Given the absence of any showing of prejudice to Defendants, the Court concludes that allowing the amendment under the circumstances will serve the interests of justice and preclude multiple similar actions involving identical issues of fact and law.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion. Additionally, Plaintiffs are directed to file a Second Amended Complaint rather than separate amendments.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint within 10 days.

Moving party to provide notice.