Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21AHCV00119, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AHCV00119    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 16, 2023                          TRIAL DATE: August 8, 2023

CASE:                         V&K PROPERTIES, LLC v. AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY; PROLINK ELITE FINANCIAL & INSURANCE SERVICES, and DOES 1-10.

CASE NO.:                 21AHCV00119

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff V&K Properties, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendants Amguard Insurance Company and Prolink Elite Financial & Insurance Services

SERVICE:                              Filed April 18, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed May 3, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed May 9, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff V&K Properties, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants Amguard Insurance Company and Prolink Elite Financial & Insurance Services (“Defendant”) engaged in bad faith while handling Plaintiff’s insurance claim for its property in Fremont, California. Plaintiff filed this complaint on November 29, 2021, alleging three causes of action for (1) breach of contractual duty to pay covered insurance claim, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) negligence.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides in relevant part:  “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.” Trial courts have discretion to permit amendments, which should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments to promote the judicial policy to resolve all disputed matters in one lawsuit. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047. “But this policy applies only [w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175, quotation marks omitted.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s original complaint had alleged that Plaintiff’s property suffered damages from vandalism and theft because of the government’s Covid-19 mandates. (Complaint ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also alleged that it made several claims between July and October 2020. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff further alleges that Amguard had failed to issue a coverage determination. (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff provides it seeks leave to file a first amended complaint to update its allegations to allege that Amguard made its coverage determination on June 27, 2022. Plaintiff further provides that it seeks to allege that Amguard is estopped from relying on the vacancy exclusion because it had accepted premiums on the policy.

            California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324 (“Rule 3.1324”), subdivision (b), requires a motion to amend a pleading to include a declaration that provides: “[¶] (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 provides a declaration that states the effect of the amendment is to update the facts of the case and allege estoppel. (Bruchey Decl. at p. 9:8-19.) Plaintiff further provides the amendment is necessary and proper because of Amguard’s pending summary adjudication motion, the necessity to update the facts of the pleading, and the fact that Plaintiff recently learned that Amguard was on notice that the premises was vacant when it accepted the premium. (Id. at pp. 9:21-10:9.) Plaintiff provides that it learned of Amguard’s notice that the hotel was vacant on March 15, 2023, during the deposition of managing director of co-defendant Prolink. (Id. at p.10:11-23.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is directed for serve his FAC within 10 days of notice of this ruling.

Dated: May 16, 2023                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org