Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV05127, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05127    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.   Allegations

Plaintiffs Xiaolong Chen, Zixi Chen, Longyu Chen, and Haoyang Huang (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on July 8, 2023, they entered into a written lease agreement for the property located at 412 San Marino Oaks, San Gabriel, CA 91775 with Defendant Kelly Tan (“Defendant”).  Plaintiffs allege that in May 2024, Defendant notified Plaintiffs that she would not be seeking a renewal of the lease agreement, citing her intention to reoccupy the property upon the termination of another personal rental agreement.  Plaintiffs allege that they commenced preparations to vacate the property in alignment with the termination date of the lease agreement, but Defendant approached Plaintiffs in mid-June 2024, suggesting a potential extension of their tenancy.  Plaintiffs allege that this caused them to halt their relocation efforts temporarily, but then on July 10, 2024, Defendant abruptly communicated her final decision not to renew the lease.  Plaintiffs allege that this compressed their timeframe to secure alternative living arrangements.  Plaintiffs allege that they vacated the property by the stipulated deadline of July 27, 2024, but returned on July 28 and 29, 2024 to complete the removal process and cleaning.  Plaintiffs allege that after their departure, Defendant retained the entirety of the security deposit citing extensive damage, which Plaintiffs contest only amount to expected wear and tear. 

The complaint, filed October 16, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of lease agreement; (2) wrongful retention of security deposit; (3) trespass to chattels; (4) fraud; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) IIED. 

B.    Motion on Calendar

On April 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the first amended complaint (“FAC”).

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 473(a)(1) states: “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.” 

            CRC rule 3.1324 requires a motion seeking leave to amend to include a copy of the proposed pleadings, to identify the amendments, and to be accompanied by a declaration including the following facts:

            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.

The Court’s discretion regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings.  (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)  If a 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.  (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  The FAC was lodged (but not filed) with the Court on April 28, 2025.

            In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides the declaration of their counsel Peter S. Deng.  Mr. Deng states that after filing the complaint, he retained a process server to serve Defendant, but the individual who appeared at her residence refused to accept service stating that her legal name was not “Kelly Tan,” she went by “Kelly Tan” as an alias, and her name was “Jing Ru Tan.”  (Deng Decl. at 2:9-16.)  Mr. Deng states that because the caption and summons only included the name “Kelly Tan,” the individual refused to accept the legal documents.  (Id. at 2:16-19.)  Counsel states based on the representations of the process server regarding Defendant’s representations, and to avoid future challenges to service, Plaintiffs seek to correct Defendant’s name to “Jing Ru Tan a.k.a. Kelly Tan.”  (Id. at 2:20-24.)  He states that the proposed amendment does not alter any substantive claims asserted against Defendant.  (Id. at 2:25-3:4.)  Mr. Deng states that no responsive pleading has been filed by Defendant, discovery has not commenced, and this motion was made at the earliest reasonable opportunity so that service can be properly made against Defendant.  (Id. at 3:3-13.) 

            Based on the moving papers, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint.  The motion papers address the factors under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Further, the motion is not opposed.  In addition, the Court recognizes the liberal policy in allowing amendment.  “[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.  The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted. 

The First Amended Complaint that was lodged by Plaintiffs and received by the Court on April 28, 2025 shall be deemed filed on May 23, 2025 following the hearing on this matter.