Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV18090, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18090    Hearing Date: July 10, 2023    Dept: 55

RAMIREZ v. MOGA 1967, LP       ,                                                            22STCV18090

Hearing Date:  7/10/23,  Dept. 55.

   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

Notice:  Okay  (no defense appearance).

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiffs

RP:  

Summary

On 6/2/22, plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that they are long-term tenants of 4517 ½ S. Hooper Ave., Los Angeles, where defendants, as owner and manager, failed to repair uninhabitable conditions,, including a collapsed and leaky roof and mold, which caused health conditions such as asthma and emotional distress.

The causes of action are:

(1) BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (TORT) BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

(2) BREACH OF CONVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

(3) NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PREMISES.

(4) NUISANCE

(5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

On 10/26/22, the Clerk entered default as to Defendant MOGA 1967, LP.

On 4/6/23, the Court granted a motion for good faith settlement determination, as between plaintiffs and Defendant SOLA IMPACT FUND II LP.

MP Positions

Moving parties request an order allowing leave to file a First Amended Complaint, on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiffs may need to proceed via default judgment, as to which requirements exist for pleading damages.

·         Plaintiffs recently obtained more information about their damages.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

The proposed First Amended Complaint may be filed as a separate document, within 10 days.

“‘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….’”  Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1308.

Default judgments involve pleading requirements regarding damages.  See  CCP § 585(a), (b), (c);  Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 1013, 1024  (“ ‘even where it is possible to modify a default judgment to a lesser amount warranted by the complaint, the court has discretion to instead vacate the underlying default and allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint and serve the amended complaint on the defendant.’ ”); Ibid. at 1019  (“Several cases have held that a statement of damages does not satisfy section 580 if the case does not involve personal injury or wrongful death.”);  Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.  (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286  (“Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint.”);  Stein v. York (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 320, 327 (informal notice of potential default judgment amount does not suffice);  Hearn v. Howard  (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1208-09 (defendants must be notified via the prayer or pleading body of sum of damages);  Reedy v. Bussell  (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 1272, 1294 ("It is well settled that the court cannot enter a default judgment in an amount greater than demanded in a complaint.");  Julius Schifaugh Iv Consulting Serv. v. Avaris (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1396 (allegation of damages in the court's jurisdictional minimum gives notice of $25,000.00);  Matera v. McLeod  (2006) 145 Cal.App.4^th 44, 60;  Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 823, 831 (“it is not possible to calculate an amount of damages from the complaint's allegations….”);  Ely v. Gray (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1257, 1260; Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 857, 864-65;  Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4^th 527, 535-36;  Nat'l Diversified Servs. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 410, 418 (allegations of the body of the complaint may sufficiently notify defendants of a specific amount of default judgment).