TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs David Stovall, Jeremy Perkins, Samantha Webster, Lucie Hill, Francis Ndoumbe, and Sabrina Amani’s Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiffs David Stovall, Jeremy Perkins, Samantha Webster, Lucie Hill, Francis Ndoumbe, and Sabrina Amani to give notice. 

REASONING

The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) A party may discover the need to amend after all pleadings are completed (the case is “at issue”) and new information requires a change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. (See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380.)

“The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [trial court’s denial of leave to amend was proper where those factors were present].) If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 [describing same].)

A motion for leave to amend must: 

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) 

Further, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify the following:

(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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiffs David Stovall, Jeremy Perkins, Samantha Webster, Lucie Hill, Francis Ndoumbe, and Sabrina Amani (“Plaintiffs”) moves the Court for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to add a ninth cause of action for retaliation, add a new defendant, name three other defendants in three causes of action, and include a request for attorney fees in the eighth cause of action. Defendants Rosalie Reber, Reber 1533 9th, LLC, and Reber 1537 9th, LLC (“Defendants”) oppose the motion on the ground that Plaintiffs have known of the events underlying their proposed new cause of action since 2021, Plaintiffs have known of the proposed new defendant’s conduct and involvement since 2021, Plaintiffs’ motion fails to set forth the inexcusable delay in seeking to amend the complaint, and they will be prejudiced by amendment at this late juncture.

The Court finds that amendment is not warranted here. First, Defendant fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs were not aware of the underlying facts since this case started. Plaintiffs state that they only learned of potential retaliation by certain defendants and that the proposed new defendant did not investigate whether the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Civil Harassment Restraining Order or the Petition to Evict Peter Gunning were true, but the statement that Plaintiffs were unaware of these facts is conclusory, i.e., it is not clear how Plaintiffs would not be aware of these facts until February 2024, and they provide no information to allow the Court to conclude that they could not have learned these facts before depositions occurred. (See Mot., Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7.) As to the claims for attorney fees which were inadvertently omitted from the pleading, Plaintiffs fail to state why they waited more than a year to move to amend their complaint to include such allegations. Without giving reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier as required by rule 3.1324(b) of the California Rules of Court, the Court lacks a basis to conclude that amendment is proper, as there is no information showing diligence in amending the pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiffs David Stovall, Jeremy Perkins, Samantha Webster, Lucie Hill, Francis Ndoumbe, and Sabrina Amani’s Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.