Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 20-1129835, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

The motion of the plaintiff for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to clarify the pleadings and to add individual Board members as defendants is DENIED.

The original complaint alleged, in essence, that defendant homeowner’s association has failed to maintain the common areas, and that the failure to do so has resulted in the diminution of the value of the plaintiff’s unit.  The plaintiff and his initial counsel had a falling out, and new counsel has entered the scene with what she believes is a better approach.

The court notes that original complaint was filed February 5, 2020.  An answer was filed June 5, 2020.  Trial in this matter has been continued four times and is currently scheduled for February 21, 2023.  The court is not inclined to continue trial again.

The motion explains that plaintiff’s new counsel believes the addition of the individual Board members will provide “leverage” to enforce the Board’s duties and responsibilities under the law.  Counsel also states that if the motion is denied, the plaintiff will simply file a new complaint, have it deemed related and consolidated with the current action, necessarily causing even more delay, including a further need to continue trial.  The court does not find these arguments persuasive.

The plaintiff has failed to show good cause for leave to file an amended complaint.  The court is most concerned that the plaintiff has stated in his declaration that he does not want a further continuance of trial—and indeed, would have opposed the last stipulated continuance if his initial counsel had told him about it.  The court has also been informed that the plaintiff has suffered, and apparently continues to suffer from, serious health issues.  Trial should be sooner rather than later, although no motion for preference has been made.

Moreover, it is unclear why, from a legal perspective, the addition of four Board members in their individual capacity at this late stage will serve to advance this action.  First, it is unclear under what authority they could be included in an action against the homeowner’s board for failure to maintain the common area.  Second, it would seem the primary issue will be resolved whether they are parties or not.  Finally, their inclusion in their individual capacity would appear only to delay the matter and not provide “leverage” towards resolution.

And as to the plaintiff’s threat to simply file a new complaint, the court will need, of course, to see it first.  But in similar situations, the court has seen fit to stay the second action if that action would unnecessarily delay resolution of the primary issues in the first action.

The defendants shall give notice.