Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 22SMCV01556, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01556, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01556 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

De Julio, et al., v. Tana, et al., Case No. 22SMCV01556

Hearing date January 24, 2024

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

On September 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed this habitability case. Trial is set for March 25, 2024.

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a first amended complaint to add punitive damages. Defendant Tana opposes.

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Courts have held “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) (“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”).

Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amended pleading; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading. CRC 3.1324(b) requires a declaration stating: (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Plaintiffs provide a declaration that satisfies CRC 3.1324(b). Counsel states the amendment adds a prayer for punitive damages and factual allegations supporting. Kalter Decl., ¶3. On November 28, 2023 defendants served responses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set 3, which included documents showing defendant received payments from insurance relating to lost income to replace rental income she had been receiving from plaintiffs prior to their displacement from the property. The request to amend was not made earlier because these facts were unknown prior to November 28, 2023. Id. at ¶¶4-6.

Defendant Tana opposes, arguing (1) plaintiffs were notified defendant was working with her insurance company before this lawsuit was filed; (2) defendant will suffer prejudice if this motion is granted because she will likely have to re-conduct discovery, including 11 depositions; (3) this will necessitate a trial continuance; and (4) plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages fails on a substantive level.

Defendant offers no evidence plaintiffs knew defendant was receiving replacement income from her insurance carrier. Defendant attaches an email from September 15, 2021 stating she was “communicating with [her] insurance company to make sure they are aware of the situation.” Dorr Decl., ¶8, Exh. A. The court agrees there is no evidence plaintiffs previously knew about the replacement income.

The issue of punitive damages does not appear to necessitate much additional discovery. Defendant may present evidence regarding what additional discovery might be required regarding a punitive damages claim. Even if a short continuance is necessary, judicial policy favors allowing the amendment. The court declines to consider the validity of the proposed amended claims, as such is not appropriate for a motion seeking leave to amend. GRANTED.