Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV02741, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants and Cross-Complainants Ayelet Bisson and Maor Schweiger, as Successors In-Interest and Co-Trustees of The Yaron Schweiger Revocable Trust (“Schweiger”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jeffrey Brunka and Christina Ring (“Plaintiffs”)

This action was filed on January 24, 2022. The action arises from a dispute between neighbors related to multiple residential properties located in Studio City, California. Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) against defendants Yaron Schweiger, an individual and as Trustee of the Yaron Schweiger Revocable Trust, and Madelein Antekelian and Andranik Antekelian, as individuals and as co-Trustees of the Antekelian Family Trust (“Antekelian”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence re: Schweiger Property; (2) negligence re: Antekelian Property; (3) private nuisance re: Schweiger Property; and (4) private nuisance re: Antekelian Property.

On May 27, 2022, Schweiger filed a cross-complaint (the “Schweiger Cross-Complaint”) against Antekelian alleging causes of action for: (1) equitable indemnity; (2) contribution; and (3) declaratory relief.

On July 12, 2022, Antekelian filed a cross-complaint (the “Antekelian Cross-Complaint”) against Schweiger as an individual, Trustee, dba White House Construction and dba Professional Builders & Remodelers, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) nuisance; (3) implied indemnity; (4) trespass; and (4) injunctive relief.

On November 18, 2024, Schweiger, through successors in interest, filed the instant motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint (the “Motion”). On January 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On January 30, 2025, Schweiger filed a reply (the “Reply”).

Objections to Robert Hollingsworth’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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 a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, 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.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047 (Kittredge Sports).) California courts will not ordinarily consider the validity of a proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave to amend given that any grounds for a demurrer or a motion to strike will be premature at that time. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 (California Casualty) (citations omitted, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 403-406).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule (“CRC”), rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall: (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.

Under CRC, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), 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.

Schweiger meets the procedural requirements for leave to amend. Schweiger has filed a ‘clean’ copy of the proposed first-amended cross-complaint (the “FAXC”) and a ‘redline’ copy showing the changes from the Schweiger Cross-Complaint, thus satisfying CRC, rule 3.1324 subdivisions (a)(1)-(3). (Block Decl., Exs. B-C.)

Schweiger has also filed a declaration from counsel satisfying CRC rule 3.1324, subdivisions (b)(1)-(4). (Block Decl., ¶¶ 9, 12 [effect, necessary and proper], 10-11 [when facts discovered, why not brought earlier.].)

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the Motion fails to provide sufficient justification for adding the new parties, is untimely and will cause undue prejudice by further delaying the proceedings. Plaintiffs argue that Schweiger’s assertion that the new parties’ “lack of drainage maintenance” contributed to the damage is merely speculative and lacks concrete evidence. (Opp. p. 3.) Plaintiffs further argue that the Motion does not adequately justify the delay in adding the new parties and causes of action and that granting it would result in prejudice by further delaying the trial date. (Opp. pp. 4-7.)

The proposed FAXC introduces new parties and causes of action directly related to the hillside failure and resulting property damage at the heart of this action. The Court does not consider the validity of a proposed amendment on a motion for leave to amend. (California Casualty, supra 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 280.) Thus, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the proposed new claims is not an issue considered by the Court in this Motion. Further, denying the amendment merely to avoid continuing the trial would not promote judicial efficiency, given the likelihood of a separate lawsuit involving the same parties and causes of action that could otherwise be addressed in this case through the proposed amendment.

The Motion for Leave to File an Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. The amended pleading is to be filed within 10 days of this order.

The Court will discuss continuing the trial date with the parties during the hearing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court