Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 20STCV39556, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV39556, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

PLEASE NOTE:

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Case Number: 20STCV39556 Hearing Date: February 9, 2024 Dept: 30

TERESA SORENSEN vs CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC. DBA SPECTRUM, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

TENTATIVE

Temple Israel of Hollywood’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Temple is ordered to file the complaint attached as Exhibit A within 10 days of this order. Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿473, subdivision¿(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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.”¿

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿¿(Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿¿(See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281¿(overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿

Furthermore, ‘it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” [Citation.]’ ”]; Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 490.) Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Under¿California Rules of Court¿Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.¿

Under¿California Rule of Court¿Rule 3.1324(b), 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.¿

Discussion

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Temple seeks leave to file an amended cross-complaint to add allegations under the cause of action for breach of contract, relating to Charter’s alleged breach of certain additional provisions in the lease agreement between Temple and Charter. Specifically, in addition to indemnity, defense, hold harmless, and reimbursement provisions, the Lease also contains provisions concerning Charter’s obligations to maintain and repair the property and to carry insurance coverage naming Temple as an additional insured to be treated as Temple’s primary insurance that Temple contends Charter breached. The additional provisions were mistakenly not mentioned in Temple’s original Cross-Complaint.

In opposition, Charter argues that two years after the cross-complaint was filed, Temple seeks to amend it without any explanation as to the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier, how Temple’s counsel noticed the alleged omission in May 2023, and why counsel did not notice the omission when she first took over the case on November 22, 2022. Moreover, Temple’s proposed amendment seeks to interject multiple new issues, which will require further investigation and discovery. Charter contends unwarranted delay in presenting a proposed amendment after knowledge of the facts is grounds in itself for denying a motion for leave to amend, and that it does not need to have been prejudiced by the delay.

The Court finds Temple has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324(a) by including a copy of the proposed amended pleading and by stating what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading and where the additional allegations are located. Further, counsel has filed a declaration attesting that she found out in May 2023 that the cross-complaint was missing these allegations, and the first hearing date was scheduled. (Matta Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) This explains the effect of the amendment; why the amendment is necessary and proper; when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿

As to Charter’s argument regarding Temple’s delay in amending, Temple’s counsel states she found out about the omission in May of 2023 and scheduled the earliest hearing date. Even assuming there was delay, the Court disagrees with Charter’s contention that delay alone will justify denying leave to amend. Although it is true “a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it,” it remains the case that “where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147; see also Kittredge Sports co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (“[Defendant] contends [Plaintiff] unreasonably delayed moving to amend… [e]ven if this were so, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”)); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”); Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545 (“In spite of this policy of liberality, a court may deny a good amendment in proper form where there is unwarranted delay in presenting it. On the other hand, where there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”) (citations omitted).

Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488 (“Where the trial date is set, the jury is about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses have blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery, refusal of leave to amend cannot be an abuse of discretion”).)

The Court finds that permitting Temple to file an amended complaint would not prejudice Charter. It is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments “relate to the same general set of facts.” (Hirsa, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 490.) The additional theories under the breach of contract claim rely on the same facts and contract. Further, trial is not until December 16, 2024, and thus, there is plenty of time to prepare for these additional theories in the same contract.

Accordingly, the Court exercising its discretion liberally in favor of amendments, grants the motion for leave to file an amended complaint.