Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case involves a dispute between a homeowner and homeowners’ association.  Plaintiff Alexander Ash claims Ashton Square Homeowners Association Inc. (“HOA”) failed to timely investigate and repair water damage to his condominium unit.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint.  Plaintiff seeks to add (1) defendant Kathy Attai, the president of the HOA’s board of directors, (2) a cause of action for negligence, and (3) a new prayer for relief.  Plaintiff argues that the additional allegations arise from the same basic facts as the original complaint, and accordingly, there is no prejudice because discovery that has already been taken will apply equally to the proposed amendments.  This is Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend.  The Court denied a prior motion because Plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324:  Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration failed to explain when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and¿the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.   

TIMELINESS 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed on November 14, 2023.  An opposition was due on November 30, 2023.  Defendants did not file an opposition until December 5, 2023.  The Court declines to consider the late-filed brief.  CRC 3.1300(d).   

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 his motion for leave to amend satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff identifies the proposed amendments and their effect, specifies when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and¿provides the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (See, e.g., Goldberg Decl. ¶¶6-11.)    

Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are based on the same basic set of facts as the original complaint.  In such cases, denial of a leave to amend would be an abuse of discretion.  (Herrera v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 255, 259 (trial court abused discretion in denying leave to amend “[s]ince the causes of action in the amended complaint were different legal theories arising from the same basic facts” as the original complaint).) 

Further, the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered over a period of time from November 2022 through October 2023, and are ongoing.  (Id. ¶6.)  Given the ongoing nature of these acts, the Court cannot conclude there was unreasonable delay in bringing this motion to amend.   

Even assuming there was delay, delay alone will not justify denying leave to amend.¿ Although it is true “a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it,” it remains the case that “where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147; see also Kittredge Sports co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (“[Defendant] contends [Plaintiff] unreasonably delayed moving to amend… [e]ven if this were so, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”)); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”); Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 (“In spite of this policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it. On the other hand, where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”) (citations omitted).¿¿ 

Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial.¿ (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 (“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”).)¿ 

 Here, we are not at the eve of trial.¿ Trial is set for July 8, 2024.  Moreover, no depositions have been taken, and any written discovery would apply equally to the amendments as they are based on the same set of facts as the original complaint.  Further, because the amendments are based on the same set of facts as the original complaint, Defendants cannot credibly claim prejudice.   ¿ 

In sum, given the liberal policy favoring amendments, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: December 13, 2023         ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court