Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00730, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00730, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00730 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: C

ORTIZ v. LETICIO BARRIOS, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00730

HEARING: 3/13/24 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Blanca E. Ortiz’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Proposed First Amended Complaint is not deemed filed as of this date. Plaintiff is to separately file and serve the First Amended Complaint within 5 court days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

No opposition filed as of March 11, 2024.

This is a real property dispute. Plaintiff Blanca E. Ortiz seeks leave to file a first amended complaint.

Leave to Amend

Courts have a strong policy of allowing motions for leave to amend. “If the 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. Super. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527.) A court can deny leave to amend after long, inexcusable delay, where there is cognizable prejudice, such as discovery needed, trial delay, critical evidence lost, or added preparation expense. (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1321(a) requires that a motion to amend must “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed… amended pleading… [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located…” Also, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b) states: “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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 seeks leave to amend the complaint to make the following changes:

· Delete the following parties: DAVID ZEPEDA, as trustee of the PETER MOORE, SANDRA MOORE, TOM CHASE, MICHELL CHASE, ROBERT MANN, JANIS MANN, FRAN GILBERT, FRANCE GUSTON, EVAN PATCH, JUAN GALYON, PATTY GALYON, KAY PATCH TRUST, a business entity form unknown; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, EST ATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF'S TITLE,OR ANY CLOUD UPON PLAINTIFF'S TITLE THERETO, an individual. (Complaint page 2, lines 3-16.)

· Add the following party: EMIDT FREDDY ROJO. (First Amended Complaint page 1, lines 26-28.)

· Delete the following allegations: the introductory allegations concerning a gift quit claim and intent to sell the property (Comp. 4:2-7); the first and second causes of action for Quiet Title and Cancellation of Instrument (Comp, 4:8-5:12); and the focus of the third cause of action for Declaratory Relief relating to the cancellation voiding of the forged quit claim deed and a gift quit claim deed (Comp. 5:23-25).

· Add the following allegations: introductory allegations concerning Rojo's involvement as the notary public and the agreement between the parties to allow the sale of the subject property with the net proceeds being held in escrow (FAC 3:13-24); two new causes of action for fraud and negligence (FAC 4:1-5:26); a request for a declaration concerning the parties rights to the money in the escrow account in the third cause of action (FAC 6:10-13); claims for general damages in excess of $100,000, emotional distress, and punitive damages, along with a declaration of the parties' rights to the money in escrow in the prayer (FAC 6:17-20, 25-27).

Plaintiff has included a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (Decl. Sienski, ¶ 5, Ex. 1.)

Counsel for Plaintiff states that after the complaint was filed, the parties negotiated an agreement that allowed for the sale of the subject property to close and the net proceeds to be deposited in an escrow account. (Decl. Sienski, ¶ 3.) As a result, the focus of the lawsuit changed from ownership of the property to damages. (Decl. Sienski, ¶ 3.) Counsel further states that the amended complaint deletes the causes of action for quiet title and cancellation of instrument and adds the causes of action for negligence and fraud. (Decl. Sienski, ¶ 3.)

Based on the above, the Court grants leave to file a first amended complaint.