Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00421, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00421    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Goldie, v. 916 Gretna Green LLC

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00421

MOTION:                  Motion for Leave to Amend

HEARING DATE:   1/17/2024

Legal Standard

If a party wishes to amend a pleading after an answer has been filed, or after a demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the pleading as a matter of course, the party must obtain permission from the court before amendment. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . ..” (CCP § 473(a)(1); see CCP § 576.) Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].) Where leave is sought to add entirely new claims, the court may grant leave to amend if the new claims are based on the same general set of facts, and the amendment will not prejudice the opposing party. (Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 600-602; Glaser v. Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].)

Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490). An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [leave properly denied where plaintiff sought leave on the eve of trial, nearly two years after the complaint was originally filed and gave no explanation for the delay which prejudiced defendant who did not discover or depose many of the witnesses who would support the new allegations and had not marshaled evidence in opposition of the new allegations].)

Procedurally, a motion for leave to amend must state with particularity what allegations are to be amended. Namely, it must 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. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration specifying: (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. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(b).) The motion must also be accompanied by the proposed amended pleading, numbered to differentiate it from the prior pleadings or amendments. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).) It is within the court’s discretion to require compliance with Rule 3.1324 before granting leave to amend. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Analysis

Plaintiff Ron R. Goldie moves for an order granting leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

This action regards alleged construction defects in a home purchased by Plaintiff and built by Defendants. Specifically, a Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") unit leaked, causing mold damage to Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant installed a condensation line with a fitting without glue and installed the drain line too deeply. Plaintiff discovered new defects in October 2023. (Woods Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) In September 2023, Plaintiff found that there was additional water leaking from a portion of the ceiling in his kitchen. (¶ 5.) Plaintiff hired a contractor, who discovered that the leak stemmed from an open drainpipe from the HVAC unit. (¶ 6.) Defendants apparently built around the drainpipe, allowing it to drain into the walls and eaves of the home. (Id., Exs. 3-4.) Plaintiff moved for leave to amend within a reasonable amount of time of this discovery, which was November 20, 2023.

The motion is uncontested. The Court observes no prejudice will result from the filing of the SAC. The substantive additions are minor and relate to the same general facts of the operative FAC. Further, trial is set for April 2024, and only minimal written discovery has occurred. (Woods Decl. ¶¶ 11, 12.) No depositions have been noticed. (¶ 12.) Discovery is underway on the newly-discovered defects. (¶ 8.) Thus, it is unlikely that amendment would prejudice Defendants.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.