Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00126, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00126    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     October 27, 2022                                TRIAL DATE:  April 18, 2023

CASE:                         MARIA STROPLE, an individual, and MATTHEW STROPLE, an individual, v. NANCY LOCKWOOD, an individual, and DOES 1-20.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00126

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiffs Maria Strople and Matthew Strople

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed September 29, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs’ Maria Strople and Matthew Strople’s (“Plaintiffs”) nuisance claim against Defendant Nancy Lockwood (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to maintain a large rubber tree on her property. Plaintiffs allege that the tree’s roots invaded their property and caused damage to their pool, irrigation system, wall, and the foundation of their house.

            Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 14, 2022, seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged nuisance.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint is granted.

            Plaintiffs shall file the SAC within 10 days of this order.

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

             Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”).

            California Rules of Court 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.”

            Plaintiffs provide that the proposed amended complaint is substantially the same as the operative complaint. (Marsh Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs provide that the SAC is verified while the FAC is not verified. Plaintiffs assert the request to file a SAC is to take the necessary steps to seek injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs provide that they believe Defendant will not cooperate in the relief sought and that an injunction is necessary to stop further damage. (Ibid.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint is granted.

            Plaintiffs shall file the SAC within 10 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   October 27, 2022                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    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