Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00124, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00124    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Melise Vartanians (Plaintiff) brings this action against Rafik Bazikian (Bazikian), 428 E. Santa Anita Homeowners Association (HOA), Artur Nersisyan (Nersisyan), and Nora Ivanyan (Ivanyan). Plaintiff alleges that she was attacked by a dog owned by Nersisyan, which resided at property owned by Rafik Bazikian. Plaintiff also alleges HOA negligently maintained the premises such that a dog with dangerous propensities was allowed to reside there.

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint contained causes of action for (1) General Negligence (as against all Defendants), (2) Strict Liability (as against all Defendants), and (3) Premises Liability (as against all Defendants).

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC) after seeking leave of the Court via noticed motion. The FAC stated causes of action for (1) Strict Liability (as against all Defendants), (2) Negligence (as against all Defendants), and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) (as against all Defendants).

On July 5, 2024, the Court heard HOA’s demurrer to each cause of action in the FAC. The Court sustained HOA’s demurrer to the Strict Liability cause of action without leave to amend, sustained HOA’s demurrer to the Negligence cause of action with leave to amend, and sustained HOA’s demurer to the IIED cause of action without leave to amend.

On August 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC states causes of action for (1) Strict Liability (as against Nersisyan and Ivanyan), (2) Negligence (as against all Defendants), (3) IIED (as against Nersisyan, Ivanyan, and Bazikian), and (4) Premises Liability (as against HOA).

Before the Court is a motion for leave to amend the Complaint brought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that the purpose of this motion is to add a cause of action for Premises Liability and to bolster allegations in support of her Negligence cause of action. Plaintiff states the additional allegations derive from information obtained in discovery. No Defendant has opposed this motion. The Court notes that, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted. 

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (C.C.P. § 473(a)(1).)

“Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire &. Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.) “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 … this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted].)

A motion to amend a pleading must include (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and (2) a statement of what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1324(a).)  These changes should identify by page, paragraph, and line number where the allegations added/removed are located.

The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to (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) why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (C.R.C. Rule 1.324(b).)

In ruling on a motion for leave to amend a pleading, the court does not consider the merits of the proposed amendment, because “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) While the trial court may deny a motion for leave to amend on grounds that, e.g., the party seeking the amendment has caused unreasonable delay in doing so, it probably abuses its discretion if it denies any such motion in the absence of a finding of prejudice to the opposing side.¿ (See Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545.)

II.                 MERITS

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated she is entitled to the relief she seeks. This is bolstered by the fact that no opposition was filed.

Plaintiff attaches a proposed Third Amended Complaint to his motion as required by C.R.C. Rule 3.1234(a). (Sepanosian Decl. Exh. A.) Plaintiff states the allegations that are proposed to be added and those to be removed. (Mot. pgs. 7-15.) Plaintiff explains that the purpose of this amendment is to reflect facts obtained in discovery, specifically the existence of a dilapidated door on the property which allowed the dog to escape Defendants’ control. (Sepanosian Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that this information was not available to be alleged until such time as Plaintiff deposed HOA’s person most knowledgeable on July 31, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel further states that this motion is an attempt to address perceived deficiencies in the SAC as raised in her meet and confer efforts with HOA. (Sepanosian Decl. ¶ 12.)

The Court finds the requirements of C.R.C. Rules 3.1324(a) and (b) are satisfied. Additionally, as the underlying facts are related to the original Complaint, allowing Plaintiff to file the amended Complaint will increase the likelihood of the case being resolved efficiently on the merits. Requests to amend initial pleadings are to be liberally considered and Defendants have rendered no opposition to the motion. 

As concerns prejudice to Defendants, the Court finds none here. It is true that more than a year passed between Plaintiff filing her initial Complaint and filing the instant motion. Regardless, no trial date has been set in this matter and HOA has clearly been apprised of the proposed additions via meet and confer efforts. Further, no Defendant has submitted any opposition presenting facts showing this amendment would prejudice their ability to defend this matter at trial. (See Rickley v. Goodfriend (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1159 [Holding that the burden of demonstrating prejudice is held by the party claiming to be prejudiced].)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file her Third Amended Complaint within 10 court days.

--- 

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 

Melise Vartanians’ Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on January 10, 2025 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 AMEND IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE HER THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 10 COURT DAYS.

THE JANUARY 21, 2025 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS ADVANCED AND CONTINUED TO APRIL 9, 2025 AT 9:00 AM.

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  January 10, 2025                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles