Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 19TRCV00252, Date: 2022-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV00252    Hearing Date: October 1, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

 

 

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                         Monday, October 3, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                                                Calendar No. 7

 


 

 

PROCEEDINGS

 

Xi Fengli v. Adriatica International, Inc., et al.

19TRCV00252

  1. Xi Fengli’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

     

    TENTATIVE RULING


                Xi Fengli’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied.

     

                Background

     

                Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 11, 2019.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  Plaintiff leased commercial property from Defendant. Defendant neglected the roof and plumbing of the retail center.  Vagrants frequented the parking lot of the retail center and homeless moved into condemned units which caused flooding. Defendant failed to rectify these issues and Plaintiff’s skin care business failed. Plaintiff alleges the following cause of action: 1. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 2. Negligence; 3. Constructive Eviction.  Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint on April 25, 2019, alleging a cause of action for breach of contract against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant for failure to pay rent.     

     

                Motion for Leave to Amend

     

                The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.  Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576.  Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted.  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.   Cal. Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.

     

                The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered.  The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend.  Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.  Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

     

                Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a): A motion for leave to amend must: “(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

     

                Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) also requires that the moving party must submit a separate declaration specifying:

                “(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.”

     

                Plaintiff moves for an order to grant leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.  Discovery has revealed that Defendant received numerous citations for unsightly and unsafe trash, unsafe and overcrowded upstairs dwellings, rats, and failing to take action to rectify the problems.

     

                Plaintiff adequately complied with Rule 3.1324(a).  Plaintiff provided a copy of the original Complaint and a red-lined version of the proposed First Amended Complaint setting forth the allegations to be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number. (Decl., Dale E. Washington, Exs. A, B.)

     

                Plaintiff provided a declaration setting forth when the facts giving rise to the amendment were first discovered – June 2022.  (Decl., Washington, ¶ 3.)  However, Plaintiff failed to provide a declaration which states facts as to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b)(1)(2)(4).  Facts to meet each element are crucial, especially Rule 3.1324(b)(4), as the Complaint was filed on March 11, 2019, and the facts giving rise to the amendment were allegedly discovered more than three years later.  Inexcusable delay and prejudice to the opposing party may be sufficient grounds to deny the motion with prejudice.  Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 686, 692-93.

     

                Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied.

     

                Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.