Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00073, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00073    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: C

VILLANUEVA v. VILLANUEVA

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00073

HEARING:   4/25/23 @ 9:30 AM

#1

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainant Maria Villanueva’s motion for leave to file first amended cross-complaint is GRANTED in part.  Cross-Complainant is ordered to file the amended cross-complaint by the end of the day on April 25, 2023.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Cross-Complainant Maria Villanueva moves for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint pursuant to CCP § 576.

“Any 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 amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”  (CCP § 576.)

Plaintiffs Jorge Luis Villanueva and his wife Christina Villanueva allege that they are the owners of the real property located at 4946 Passons Boulevard, Pico Rivera, California 90660.

Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Quiet Title

2.    Declaratory Relief

3.    Fraud

4.    Constructive Trust

5.    Unjust Enrichment

6.    Injunctive Relief

Maria Villanueva’s cross-complaint alleges that her brother, Jorge, assisted her in purchasing the property.  At the time of the original purchase in or around July of 1993, Maria was not in a position to purchase a property on her own. So, she and Jorge agreed that Maria would pay the down payment on Passons Blvd., and that Jorge would take the mortgage in his name.  (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 6-8.)  Jorge agreed to “sign over title” back to Maria immediately after escrow, although years went by without him doing that.  (Id., ¶ 9.)  Based thereon, the Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Quiet Title

2.    Breach of Contract

3.    Conversion

4.    Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

5.    Slander of Title

6.    Private Nuisance

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleadings.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) 

Maria seeks to remove the 5^th cause of action for Slander of Title and the 6^th cause of action for Private Nuisance, and replace Conversion with Trespass, and to add more specific facts.

In opposition, Jorge argues that the changes are material and would require additional discovery.  However, the only substantive change is the addition of a Trespass claim to replace Conversion.  The parties should have already conducted discovery regarding Conversion, which should constitute the same facts supporting Trespass.  In reply, Maria argues that Cross-Defendants have used the past three months (since she filed her motion for leave to amend the Cross-Complaint) to take full advantage of conducting additional discovery relating to the proposed FACC. 

The court finds that Cross-Defendants would not suffer undue prejudice from the proposed FACC and, furthermore, judicial efficiency favors resolving all of the parties’ disputed matters in the same lawsuit.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED to remove the 5^th cause of action for Slander of Title and the 6^th cause of action for Private Nuisance, and replace Conversion with Trespass. 

The motion is DENIED as to alleging other additional facts in the body of the Cross-Complaint.  These facts are not necessary for pleading purposes as Maria has previously alleged sufficient facts to support her claims.  Any additional facts are extraneous and can be admitted at trial.  Cross-Complainant is ordered to file the amended cross-complaint by the end of the day on April 25, 2023.