Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV03704, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV03704, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03704 Hearing Date: November 17, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 23SMCV03704

MOTION: Motion for Leave to Amend

HEARING DATE: 11/17/2023

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 Diana Chen moves for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC). (Fuller Decl., Exs. 1-2.) Plaintiffs seek to amend the first amended complaint (FAC) to allege the following:

1. The case caption/row "DIENA CHEN, an individual" to "DIENA CHEN, individually and as trustee of the Diena Chen Living Trust dated April 30,2019

2. The initial introductory sentence (top of page 2) from "Plaintiff, Diena Chen alleges" to "Plaintiff, DIENA CHEN, individually and as trustee of the Diena Chen Living Trust dated April 30, 2019, alleges and

3. Paragraph 1, page 2, of the Preliminary Allegations from the current language of the FAC: "1. Plaintiff, Diena Chen ("Plaintiff) is, and was at all times mentioned herein, an individual residing in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is and was, at all times mentioned herein, the owner and resident of certain real property located at 16693 Channel Lane, Pacific Palisades, California 90272, Los Angeles County, California (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs Property")." to: "1. Plaintiff, Diena Chen is, and was at all times mentioned herein, an individual residing in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is a resident of certain real property located at 16693 Channel Lane, Pacific Palisades, California 90272, Los Angeles County, California (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs Property"). Plaintiffs Property was purchased by her in her individual capacity in 2019 and was subsequently transferred in November of2020 by quitclaim deed from Diena Chen, an individual, to Diena Chen as trustee of the Diena Chen Living Trust dated April 30, 2019 (the "Chen Trust"). Hereinafter, Diena Chen, an individual and Diena Chen as trustee of the Chen Trust will be referred to collectively as "Plaintiff."

Counsel provides that the proposed changes to the FAC relate purely to a clarification of Plaintiff s legal standing to bring this action, not only as an individual, but also in her role as trustee of her trust. No substantive changes to the FAC are proposed. The proposed changes do nothing but clarify and make certain that the plaintiff is acting in a dual capacity.

Given the technical nature of such amendments, the Court observes no prejudice to the present Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file the SAC within five days.