Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00202, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00202    Hearing Date: March 10, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

ALLEGATIONS: 

Synyahn Johnson (“Plaintiff”), in Pro Per, filed her Complaint on March 29, 2022 against Diana Dolamayan and Ascentia Beauty Spa LLC (“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s claims stem from a landlord-tenant relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to evict Plaintiff constructively and tortuously from her business location in 4662 Lankershim Blvd, North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California.

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendant thereafter demurred. The Court sustained the demurrer as to several causes of action with leave to amend. On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

The SAC contains eleven causes of action for: (1)Breach of Contract-DS Medi Spa, LLC; (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings; (3) Slander Per Se — Civil Code § 46; (4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (5) Unfair Business Practices-Business Profession §17200 et seq.; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (7) Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity; (8) Defamation at Common Law and Pursuant to Civ. Code Section 46; (9) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (10) Negligence; (11) Violation of L.A.M.C. 8.45.050 (Los Angeles Anti-Harassment Ordinance).

HISTORY: 

On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to Amend her SAC. Defendants thereafter filed a Demurrer to the SAC. On February 27, 2022, Defendants filed their opposition to this motion. No Reply was filed by the March 3, 2023 deadline.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, … or allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).)

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’ That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

CRC Rule 3.1321(a) requires that a motion to amend must: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed… amended pleading… [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located…”

CRC Rule 3.1324(b) provides, as follows: “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

II.                 MERITS

Plaintiff’s motion complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed TAC and sets forth the allegations to be added and/or deleted along with the corresponding paragraph numbers. (Notice of Motion pgs. 17-18.)

Plaintiff’s motion also substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiff submitted a separate declaration that specifies the effect of the amendment and explains why the amendment is necessary and proper.  (Johnson Decl. ¶¶4-5.) 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has inadequately stated facts giving rise to the amended allegations. Plaintiff states in her declaration “On February 1, 2023 Plaintiff and Defendant had a telephonic meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's SAC. It was then that the facts supporting Plaintiff's amendment to complaint arose and were discovered.” (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendants point to no legal authority supporting their contention that the information obtained during the meet and confer serves as an illegitimate basis for amendment. Plaintiff states that she learned of Defendants issues with her SAC and she subsequently filed a TAC compliant with CRC Rule 3.1324(a).

Defendants further argues that they will be prejudiced by the granting of this motion. Defendants contend that this motion will prevent Defendants from becoming aware of the operative claims and delay their ability to conduct discovery, prepare for summary judgment and prepare for trial. Defendant’s assertions of prejudice are based on a timeline which does not exist, as no trial date has been set in this matter. Defendants’ arguments in opposition do not establish that Defendants will be so prejudiced by the amendment such that leave to amend should be denied.

Defendants argue that granting Plaintiff’s motion would moot their Demurrer and Motion to Strike, thereby depriving Defendants of rulings on those motions. The Court notes that Defendants filed their Demurrer and Motion to Strike on February 21, 2023, well after they were served with notice of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave. Defendants point to no law supporting that the mooting of their later filed demurrers as grounds to deny Motion for Leave to file an amended complaint.

The Court finds that Defendants’ arguments relating to the merits of the proposed TAC are more appropriately raised on demurrer or motion to strike the pleading. Defendants cite to Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, which states “if the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action, it is proper to deny leave to amend.” The Court finds Foxborough to be factually inapposite. Foxborough concerned a plaintiff who failed to state a cause of action by virtue of plaintiff’s claim being time barred under the statute of limitations. Here, Defendants arguments are premised on Plaintiff’s failure to allege sufficient facts, not on her claim’s complete lack of legal viability. As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.

III.              CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff has filed a code compliant motion for leave to file an amended complaint as per CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint would not prejudice Defendant. As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Synahn Johnson’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint came on regularly for hearing on March 10, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THRID AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF SHALL GIVE NOTICE, UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  March 10, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles