Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV12423, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12423    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Eduardo Cabrera, Edward Cabrera and Kimberly Cabrera (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Benancio B. Benavides (“Defendant”)

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

BACKGROUND

            This is a habitability action arising out of a tenant-landlord relationship. Plaintiffs sue Defendant and Does 1 through 20 pursuant to a May 16, 2024 complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability [Common Law]; (2) Breach of the Warranty of Habitability [Statutory]; (3) Retaliation [Statutory]; (4) Breach of the Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment; (5) Negligence; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Private Nuisance; and (8) Retaliatory Constructive Eviction.          

            On April 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (the “Motion”). On May 14, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On May 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply (the “Reply”).

DISCUSSION

            The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading 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. (Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and 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. (CCP, § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (See Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)¿ 

A motion to amend a pleading before trial 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. (California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting 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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (CRC, rule 3.1324(b).)¿ 

            Plaintiffs move for leave to file a first amended complaint adding two causes of action for tenant harassment under Los Angeles Municipal Code section 45.33 and Civil Code section 1940.2. (Mot., p. 2:4-6.) Plaintiffs attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint to the Motion. (Amended Obiamiwe Decl., Ex. C.) Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that the facts giving rise to the tenant harassment claims were disclosed in discovery responses in March 2025. (Amended Obiamiwe Decl., ¶ 13.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs have complied with CRC, rule 3.1324 subdivisions (a) and (b). (See Amended Obiamiwe Decl., ¶¶ 11-16.)

            In the Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion should be denied because the new causes of action add no new facts or theories of recovery and because Plaintiffs unjustifiably delayed in seeking an amendment. (Opp. pp. 3:3-5:13.) Although Defendant argues that he will suffer prejudice because he will need to conduct additional discovery, Defendant does not clarify what additional discovery would be necessary considering the new causes of action add no new facts or theories of recovery. Thus, in light of the liberal policy favoring granting motions for leave to amend pleadings, the Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The amended pleading is to be filed within 10 days of this order.

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 28th day of May 2025