Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCV00893, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20BBCV00893    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: A

ALLEGATIONS:

Angel Nagel and Theoplas Forsett ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against The Andalucia Project, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company ("Andalucia") and Arthur Aslanian ("Aslanian", and together, "Defendants"), alleging that Plaintiffs were exposed to health, safety, and habitability risks as tenants of Defendants at the real property located at 11051 ½ - 55 Hartsook Street, North Hollywood, CA ("Property"). Plaintiffs allege that Andalucia is the owner, and Aslanian the manager of the Property.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on December 10, 2020, alleging seven (7) causes of action sounding in: (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) Tortious Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Nuisance; (5) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et. seq.; (6) Negligence; and (7) Intentional Interference with Estate.

HISTORY:

The Court received the Motion for Leave to File FAC filed by Plaintiffs on July 1, 2022; and the opposition filed by Defendants on July 18, 2022. The Court has not received any reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §473(a) permits the Court to grant leave to a party to amend a pleading. The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530.) Courts may grant a motion to amend as late as the time of trial and even postpone the trial if necessary to the furtherance of justice. (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 960, 965.) But despite the general policy of liberality in allowing amendments, it is proper and within the discretion of the trial court to deny leave to file a proposed amendment unless the proponent of the amendment can show the amendment will not be prejudicial to other parties in the action and the delay in bringing the amendment was excusable. (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 175.)

II.        MERITS

On July 1, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ previous motion for leave to amend complaint, ruling that a grant of leave to add the new cause of action and punitive damage claims would prejudice Defendants, who had no prior notice of these new claims. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ declaration failed to set forth good cause to grant leave to amend and justify continuing the trial and resuming discovery because the law, facts, and circumstances should have been known to Plaintiffs far before the filing of the motion. The Court also considered that Plaintiffs moved to continue the previous trial date, set for June 6, 2022, on May 20, 2022, and subsequently filed a motion for leave to amend less than two weeks later, on May 31, 2022. Plaintiff’s declaration did not explain whether Plaintiff’s counsel knew about the facts underlying the proposed amendment at the time the continuance was requested, given that, without the Court’s grant of continuance, the matter would have been tried prior to any amendment. After considering Plaintiffs’ unexplained and dilatory filing, as well as the substantial prejudice to Defendants, the Court denied the motion.

At that previous hearing, the trial date was only two months from the hearing date. At this current juncture, the trial date is now one month away. In their moving papers, Plaintiffs have not addressed any of the Court’s concerns given in the previous hearing or presented any new facts to change the Court’s analysis.

III.       CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court denies the instant motion with prejudice.