Judge Mark C. Kim, Case 19TRCV00698 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 19TRCV00698, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV00698 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022 Dept: S27

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Chih and Yin Change and Else and Scott Haley, individually and as trustees of their family trusts, filed this action against Defendants, John and Dina Gample and their family trust, as well as Juge Company, Inc., Joseph Harold Juge, Jr., Juge Design and Construction, John Juge, and Juge & Juge for damages arising out of construction work done on Defendants’ property.

Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint includes causes of action for Breach of Statutory Building Codes and Ordinances, Trespass on Real Property, Trespass on Real Property, Negligence, Invasion of Privacy, and Quiet Title. Plaintiffs’ FAC includes a prayer for punitive damages, which they seek in connection with their first (statute) and fifth (privacy) causes of action.

On 4/19/22, the Court heard and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs were permitted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, wherein they added the City of Torrance as a defendant in the action. Plaintiffs added the City because the Gample Defendants, in their cross-complaint, seek to use an alleged City easement as a drain line over Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs, by way of their amended complaint, seek a declaration that there is no such easement.

2. Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint

a. Relief Sought

The Gample Defendants seek leave to amend their cross-complaint. The Gamples seek leave to add the City of Torrance to their cross-complaint, and to add a quiet title cause of action to their cross-complaint. In the quiet title cause of action, they will seek a determination that they have the right to use a portion of the Chang Home in the area of the City Easements for Draining Purposes against all adverse claims of Chang.

b. Law Governing Leave to Amend

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP §§473 and 576.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. 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. However, the court 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. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.)

c. Analysis

The City does not oppose the motion. Plaintiffs, however, do oppose the motion. Plaintiffs assert a variety of arguments in opposition to the motion, each of which will be addressed in turn.

Plaintiffs argue at length that Defendants’ proposed FACC is subject to the defense of unclean hands. Plaintiffs erroneously assert that the Court has already found in their favor concerning an award of punitive damages. The Court has, to date, made pleading rulings ONLY. The Court found Plaintiffs’ pleading was sufficient to state a potential claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs must still prove the allegations of their pleading, and a finder of fact must find fraud, malice, or oppression; none of those findings has been made. Plaintiffs provide authority for the position that equitable issues can be tried before legal issues. Plaintiffs, based on this authority, seek to have the Court TRY the equitable issues (unclean hands) before permitting Defendants to PLEAD the legal issues (quiet title). While the case may ultimately be bifurcated for trial, there is no authority for bifurcating the pleading of claims.

Plaintiffs also argue there are no new facts pled in the proposed FACC. However, Defendants’ attorney’s declaration shows that Counsel became aware of the need to add the City and a quiet title claim when Plaintiffs asserted their own quiet title claim and brought the City into the action in April. While Defendants arguably delayed from April until September in bringing this motion, delay can only result in denial of the motion if there is also prejudice, which the Court will discuss below.

Plaintiffs contend the quiet title cause of action is duplicative and unnecessary. They contend Defendants admit as much when they assert that the quiet title cause of action is “the same cause of action” asserted by Plaintiffs. Defendants’ point was that their quiet title cause of action will not expand the issues, because quiet title is already being litigated. Obviously, Plaintiffs seek to quiet title adverse to Defendants, and Defendants seek to quiet title adverse to Plaintiffs; while the same set of facts and law come into play, the end result of each cross-complaint, if successful, would be different. Thus, the cause of action is not unnecessary and duplicative.

Plaintiffs argue they will be prejudiced if the motion is granted because Defendants should have added the City to the action at the outset, and Plaintiffs incurred the time and expense of bringing the City into the action. They also argue they will be prejudiced because the late motion denies them their day in court to prove unclean hands and laches. As to the first argument, litigation is expensive, and Plaintiffs realized the City needed to be added to the case; Defendants, upon receipt of Plaintiffs’ motion, realized they would also need to assert claims against the City. This is not the type of prejudice that would defeat a motion for leave to amend. As to the second argument, the motion in no way precludes Plaintiffs from arguing, at trial, their unclean hands and/or laches theories. The motion simply ensures all issues between the parties are litigated in the same action, which is the favored policy of the courts.

Each of Plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition to the motion fails, and the motion is granted. Defendants are ordered to file a separate copy of their FACC within ten days. Any party who wishes to file a responsive pleading must do so within the statutory time thereafter. If any party does not file a responsive pleading, the pleading filed in response to the original cross-complaint will be deemed the response to the FACC.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.