Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV07981, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV07981    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

On 3/7/2019, Plaintiff Michael Yoon (Plaintiff) filed suit against Chris Pak (Defendant), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) money lent; and (3) unjust enrichment.

            Now, Defendant moves for leave to file a first amended answer.

Discussion

            As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute that, as pled, Defendant’s eighth affirmative defense is defective. In order to properly plead a statute of limitations defense, the answering party must either allege facts showing that the action is barred or plead the specific section and subdivision of the applicable statute of limitations statute as provided for in CCP§458. (See Brown v. World Church (1969) 72 Cal.App.2d 684, 69.) Here, Plaintiff failed to allege either supporting facts or the specific statute.

            Established case law also shows that the pleading requirements of CCP section 458 must be strictly applied, and a plaintiff is not required to demur to a statute of limitations defense that fails to comply with [CCP] section 458’s specificity requirement. (Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 136, 173-74.)

            As such, the issue is whether or not, in light of this, Defendant should still be provided leave to amend to bring his pleading within the requirements of CCP section 458. For the following reasons, the Court believe he should be afforded such leave.

            First, and most importantly, while Defendant’s affirmative defense was improperly pled, Defendant has been actively litigating this defense throughout the action. Indeed, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, setting forth the specific section and subdivisions to support his claims: CCP sections 339(1), 337(a), (b), 338 subd. (d), 360.  As such, Plaintiff has been on notice of the specific statutory basis for Defendant’s affirmative defense since at least 4/13/2021, even if that affirmative defense was technically defective.

            Second, in Area 55, supra, the Court concluded that Defendant had waived its affirmative defense of the statute of limitations because it was not properly pled. However, there, the Court was evaluating whether or not the statute of limitations argument had been properly excluded from the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis (i.e., probability of success). The Court concluded it had: Given that the statute of limitations had not been validly asserted, respondents could not argue that appellant had no probability of success based on the statute of limitations. Here, by contrast, the Court is not being asked to adjudicate an issue based on a statute of limitations argument. Rather, the Court is being asked to grant leave to amend so that Defendant can bring his answer into conformity with law in order to advance this argument at trial.  

Second, while the proposed amendment does come on the eve of trial, Plaintiff has not persuasively identified any meaningful prejudice that would result if the amendment was allowed—indeed, Plaintiff’s opposition does not contain any argument as to prejudice.

            Third, the Court’s discretion to allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order is very broad. CCP section 576 states that “[a]ny 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.” As such, it would be in the discretion of this Court to allow a party—even on the eve of trial—to amend their pleading to add completely new causes of action or defenses if it was in the interests of justice to do so. Here, Defendant does not even seek to substantively add anything new. Rather, Defendant seeks to make a necessary technical modification to his affirmative defense to match the arguments he has already been litigating, which Plaintiff has had notice of since at least 4/13/2021, and where there is no showing of meaningful prejudice.

            Fourth, logic compels that leave be granted. As noted by both parties, Defendant raised the issue of the statute of limitations in an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the merits, and did not raise any objection about the viability of Defendant’s statute of limitations affirmative defense (though, as stated, Plaintiff had no obligation to do so). While Defendant’s motion was ultimately unsuccessful, this means that the Court could have potentially found in Defendant’s favor on the basis of statute of limitations. In other words, there is a possibility that this case could have been adjudicated in Defendant’s favor based on the statute of limitations. It would be illogical to now deny Defendant the opportunity to present arguments at trial which it could have prevailed upon at the summary judgment stage without objection.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend is granted. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.