Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00744, Date: 2024-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00744    Hearing Date: July 5, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT 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 requested 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: 

Gagan H. Palrecha (Plaintiff) brings this action against Loyalty Creative Enterprise LLC, Nicholas S. Larsen, and Peter Munzo (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff originally brought this action as one for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff alleged the Defendants were improperly in possession of the property known as 4248 Vanetta Drive Studio City, CA 91604 (the Property).

Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend his Complaint to reflect the fact that Defendants have subsequently quit the premises. Plaintiff seeks to remove his cause of action for unlawful detainer and add causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Conversion, (3) Property Damage, and (4) Unfair Competition. Defendants have rendered no opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

A party requesting leave to amend must submit a motion that includes: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings; (2) a statement of which allegations would be deleted by the amendment, and where they are located in the previous pleading; and (3) a statement of what allegations would be added by the amendment, and where they are located in the proposed pleading.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion should also include 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) why the request was not made earlier.¿ (Id. at Rule 3.1324(b).)

A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed. C.C.P. § 472(a). After the period for amending a pleading without leave of court has passed, the pleading may be amended under C.C.P. § 473(a) and § 576.

The trial court should permit a plaintiff to amend a pleading when doing so is in furtherance of justice and in keeping with the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on their merits.¿ (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 956-966.) 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

Plaintiff attaches a proposed First Amended Complaint to his motion (Yetka Decl. Exh. A.) Plaintiff also states the allegations that are proposed to be added concerning the new cause of action. (See Yetka Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff states the purpose of this amendment is to reflect the fact that Defendants have since quit the premises and Plaintiff now only seeks monetary damages in this action. (Yetka Decl. ¶ 5(b).) Specifically, Plaintiff states that Defendants quit the premises on August 8, 2023 and that Plaintiff has additional money claims against Defendants which could not be raised in an Unlawful Detainer, such as claims for damage to the Property and recording equipment which was stolen from the Property. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that Defendants’ previous counsel was willing to stipulate to a First Amended Complaint, but that changes in representation for Defendants have halted that process. (Yetka Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court finds the requirements of California Rules of Court, 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.  Additionally, the trial in this case has not yet been set, so there would be no prejudice to Defendants if Plaintiff is allowed to amend its Complaint at this time.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.  

--- 

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 

Gagan H. Palrecha’s Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on July 5, 2024 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 HAS 20 DAYS TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  July 5, 2024                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles