Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV01056, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01056    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

SETA, LLC v. Liberman, et al., Case No. 21SMCV01056

Hearing Date: September 6, 2024

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Complaint

Plaintiff SETA brought a nuisance and ejectment suit against defendants Liberman, alleging the Libermans encroached onto SETA’s property. The Libermans seek to leave to file a first amended answer to assert affirmative defenses that 1) an easement existed and 2) the relative hardship doctrine. Libermans’ counsel states previous defense counsel did not assert these affirmative defenses when filing the original answer. Ritter Decl. ¶ 2. After investigating SETA's claims, defense counsel determined asserting the additional affirmative defenses is necessary and would provide strong defenses against SETA’s claims. Id. ¶3.

In opposition, SETA argues the motion fails to demonstrate diligence because the Libermans failed to show a valid reason for not seeking the amendment earlier. SETA contends defendants had time to request permission to file an amended answer since they were served in July 2021 and had time during discovery, which began in September 2021.

The court is not persuaded, as the amendment would not cause a delay in the trial, which is three months away, cost critical evidence, add preparation costs or increase the burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 CA4th 471, 486-488.

SETA argues, without explanation, that allowing the amendment would be prejudicial, as it would require naming the City of Los Angeles. SETA does not explain why the City would be named nor what allegations might be brought. SETA does not explain how the proposed amendment or addition of the City causes prejudices. On the other side, defendants would be significantly prejudiced were they to be precluded from presenting evidence of an existing easement that would impact the rights of the landowners. There is a liberal policy regarding amendment of pleadings, and the court exercises its discretion in this instance.

The motion includes a redline and clean version of the proposed Amended Answer. Given that courts should liberally allow amendments to answer where no prejudice is shown, the court finds leave to be appropriate. Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564. GRANTED.