Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 20STLC00111, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Mold Masters, Inc. v. Lahiji, et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

Plaintiff Mold Masters, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff Mold Masters, Inc (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Nahid Lahiji, individually, and as Trustee of the Nahid Lahiji Trust dated September 22, 2017, (“Defendant”) on January 7, 2020. On December 13, 2021, Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on July 3, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, common counts, and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien with respect to mold remediation services Plaintiff provided Defendant. (Compl., ¶¶6-8.) Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to make non-substantive changes to the Complaint by correcting certain typographical errors and attaching the correct contract.

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines of the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by a declaration explaining that the errors in the original Complaint were discovered in June 2024 and setting forth what allegations are to be added and where with “specifications by reference to pages and lines of the allegations that would be deleted and added.” (Motion, Stiefler Decl., p. 2:3-26.) The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint to make non-substantive corrections such as referring to the contract as the “second contract” instead of the “first contract” and changing the numbering in the prayer for damages. (Motion, Stiefler Decl., p. 2:3-26.) Nor is there any indication of excusable delay nor prejudice to Defendant, who has not opposed the Motion. All the requirements for leave to amend, therefore, are satisfied.

Plaintiff Mold Masters, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.