Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV25671, Date: 2024-02-16 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.

Case Number: 22STCV25671    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action was initiated on August 9, 2022.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”), filed on September 1, 2023, alleges: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability/tenantability; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) breach of good faith and fair dealing; (5) nuisance; (6) negligence; (7) battery; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (10) violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; (11) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; and (12) violations of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 49.99.2.

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue trial (the “Trial Motion”).  The Trial Motion requests a continuance of the trial date to August 11, 2024.

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (the “SAC Motion”).  The proposed second amended complaint (the “SAC”) adds a thirteenth cause of action alleging constructive eviction.  (See SAC Motion, Exhibit 1.)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice.  (CCP § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  CCP section 576 provides that any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.  (CCP § 576.)  There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding.  (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.)  An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion.  (Id.)  If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.  (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.  (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)

Under California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1324, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that sets forth: (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 sooner.  (CRC, r. 3.1324(b).)

            The facts underlying the proposed allegations in the SAC were learned sometime before August 24, 2023.  (See Declaration of Maxwell R. Meyering (“Meyering Decl.”) ¶ 3.)  On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff contacted Defendants’ counsel to request a stipulation for Plaintiff to file the SAC.  (See Meyering Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)  Defendants’ counsel stated that they were not open to stipulating to allowing Plaintiff to file the SAC and requested that Plaintiff participate in mediation before revisiting the issue.  (See Meyering Decl. ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff and Defendants unsuccessfully participated in a mediation on October 31, 2023.  (Declaration of Hripsime Martirosyan (“Martirosyan Decl.”) ¶ 7.)  Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s subsequent requests to stipulate to the filing of the SAC.  (See Martirosyan Decl. ¶ 8.) 

            The Court finds that the SAC Motion does not adequately set forth why the proposed amendment is necessary and proper.  Notwithstanding the October 31, 2023 mediation date, the SAC Motion further fails to sufficiently explain why Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend earlier.  The Court therefore DENIES the SAC Motion.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

CRC, rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(b).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(c).)  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (a) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (b) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  (Id.)

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC, r. 3.1332(d).) 

            The Trial Motion seeks a trial continuance in order to allow Plaintiff to pursue the new claim in the proposed SAC and to afford Plaintiff extra time to locate witnesses who Plaintiff learned are no longer employed by Defendants.  (See Martirosyan Decl. ¶ 12.)  In light of the Court’s discussion of the SAC Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented sufficient grounds to warrant the length of the trial extension requested by the Trial Motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s explanation for the need for ongoing discovery somewhat thin.  However, given the recent unavailability of Defendants’ former employees, the Court finds it appropriate to give Plaintiff additional time to notice and conduct depositions.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Trial Motion and continues the trial to June 10, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in this department.  All pre-trial deadlines are vacated and continued to correspond with the new trial date. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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. 

  Dated this 16th day of February 2024