Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01477, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01477    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Abitbol v. Pico Eleven, Case no. 23SMCV01477

Hearing date October 7, 2024

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend

Tenant plaintiffs Jonathan and Sara Abitbol sue landlord/property managers defendants Pico Eleven, LLC and BD Management Company, LLC for breach of lease, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, nuisance, negligence, NIED and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint.

Per CCP §473(a)(1): “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…”)

Per 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.

Defendants argue plaintiffs fail to state what allegations are to be deleted or added. Though the motion does not state what allegations are being deleted, plaintiffs attach their proposed FAC and a redlined version. This puts defendants on notice of the proposed amendments.

Plaintiffs note removal of the sixth COA occurred via stipulation, and the court granted an order on 6/6/2023 to that effect. Not only did defendants have notice of the sixth COA’s deletion but were parties to that decision.

Defendants argue plaintiffs’ declaration is defective under CRC 3.1324(a). Plaintiffs’ counsel states the effects of the amendments and when the facts were discovered. Decl. Taylor para. 7. Counsel states the amendments are necessary because plaintiffs experienced additional problems with defendants related to the lawsuit since it commenced. Decl. Taylor para. 4. Counsel states the amendments were not brought sooner because the issues within are ongoing, and plaintiffs were in communication with defendants prior to the filing of this motion. Decl. Taylor paras. 4-5. Plaintiffs’ declaration satisfies the requirements of CRC 3.1324.

Defendants argue the newly alleged facts implicate anti-SLAPP issues. If defendants wish the court to strike those allegations, defendants may file an anti-SLAPP motion. It is not proper to consider such arguments in opposition to a motion for leave to amend.

Defendants argue the proposed amendments give rise to facts that will necessitate more discovery. Plaintiffs note “[t]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” Mesler, supra, at 296. Parties can amend at any time, including during trial. That the parties might need to engage in additional discovery is not a reason to deny leave to amend. GRANTED. Plaintiffs to file the FAC within 10 court days.