Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Justin Ligeri, Christina Pecci and Cheyenne Brands, LLC 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a landlord tenant dispute.  Plaintiff SM 10000 owns property located at 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard, Unit 3403, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”).  Plaintiff entered into a one-year lease agreement (“Lease”) with Defendants Justin Ligeri, Christina Pecci and Cheyenne Brands LLC to rent the Property.  The parties then entered into a second six month Lease to rent the Property.  Defendant Ligeri signed the first and second lease agreements as Guarantor.  Defendants have not paid a full month’s rent since August 2, 2020.  Defendants finally vacated the Property on February 9, 2023.  As of that date, the amount due for rent, utilities and parking fees is $352,814.37.   

Plaintiff filed this case originally as a breach of contract action.  The Court then granted Plaintiff’s motion to convert the case to an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint for breach of contract because Defendants have since vacated the Property thereby mooting the unlawful detainer.  Plaintiff and Defendants Justin Ligeri and Cheyenee Brands LLC stipulated that “SM 10000 may seek to amend their Complaint so as to state claims for monetary damage only, instead of asserting Unlawful Detainer” and “any such motion to amend will be filed by February 24, 2023.”  (Ex. 6 to Olsen Decl.)  Defendant Cristina Pecci was not a party to the stipulation and opposes Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP § 473(a)(1), provides, in relevant part: “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.”¿ 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a),¿a motion to amend a pleading shall:¿ 

(1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;¿ 

(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.¿¿ 

¿ 

In addition, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b),¿a¿separate declaration¿must accompany the motion and must specify:¿¿ 

(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.¿ 

¿¿ 

The Court’s discretion to grant leave “should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ 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.¿¿The Court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of its motion for leave to amend satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff identifies the amendment, its effect, and the recent events that prompted the amendment.  (Olsen Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9.)  Plaintiff’s motion also includes the proposed second amended complaint.  (Ex. 4 to Olsen Decl.)   

There is also a stipulation and order allowing Plaintiff to “seek to amend [its] Complaint so as to state claims for monetary damage only, instead of asserting Unlawful Detainer.”  (Ex. 6 to Olsen Decl.)  The Court ordered that any such motion to amend must be filed by February 24, 2023.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to amend on February 23, 2023. 

Defendant Cristina Pecci was not a party to the stipulation and now argues that leave to amend should not be granted because the amendment fails to state a cause of action.  Pecci argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that the second lease was merely a “lease extension” to which Pecci was bound.  Pecci claims she did not sign the second lease, and therefore she is not liable for any breach of the second lease.  Pecci’s argument regarding the substantive merits of Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is improper at this stage.  Ordinarily, the validity of an amendment is not grounds for denial of leave to amend, and its legal sufficiency should be tested on a demurrer or other appropriate proceedings.  (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)   

“Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.”  (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180 (reversing denial of leave to amend based on trial court’s erroneous application of CCP §364 as an affirmative defense).)  A court’s discretion to deny an amendment based on its “substantive validity” is most appropriately exercised in “cases in which the insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent and where the insufficiency could not be cured by further appropriate amendment.”  (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Supr. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 (disapproved of on other grounds).)  Here, Pecci has not shown that Plaintiff’s claim is invalid based on controlling precedent and that any purported insufficiency could not be cured by further amendment.  

Pecci also argues that the amendment is improper because it is seeking to amend a verified unlawful detainer complaint and therefore, the amendment must also be verified.  Pecci cites no case law -- and the Court has found none -- that would support this purported requirement.       

  Finally, Pecci argues that the trial date of December 11, 2023 should be vacated if the amendment is allowed.  Pecci contends – even though the trial date is over seven months away -- she would need additional time to file an amended Answer and conduct expanded additional discovery concerning the claim of “lease extension.”  Pecci does not specify how long of a continuance she seeks.  In any event, to the extent Pecci seeks a continuance of the trial date, she should file a motion to continue trial, with all the necessary support to demonstrate good cause.  

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint.  Plaintiff is directed to file its second amended complaint within 5 days.