Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01816, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01816    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Purner, et al. v. Greystone Properties, LLC, et al., Case No. 22SMCV01816

Hearing Date: August 5, 2024

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint – UNOPPOSED

In this habitability action arising from bed bug infestation, plaintiff tenants seek for leave to file a first amended complaint, adding three new causes for actions.

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a) and 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although 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 [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.  

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a declaration to set forth what allegations are to be added and where, and what new evidence was discovered warranting amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must include (1) a proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), (b).

The motion complies with CRC rule 3.1324. Plaintiffs’ counsel states the deposition of Josh Wolf on May 14, 2024, revealed additional facts and violations of Plaintiffs’ rights by the defendant. Bartlett Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs specify the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendment because they state the proposed FAC seeks to “clean up” allegations and errors in the Complaint while adding three new causes of action: 1) violation of the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; 2) negligence; and 3) breach of contract based on an illegal contract. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

Plaintiffs specify where the edits would be made by providing a blue-lined copy of the proposed FAC showing the changes between the proposed FAC and the complaint. Id. ¶ 7; Exh. B. Finally, Bartlett states the amendment was not made earlier because plaintiffs were unable to get an agreement with defendants to file a joint stipulation. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9. Defendants would not be prejudiced as they have not taken any depositions of the plaintiffs and do not file an opposition. Id. ¶ 3. GRANTED.