Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21VECV00883, Date: 2024-04-22 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.

Bejines v. MDT Properties, Inc., et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

Plaintiff Daniel Bejines’ Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

This case is a landlord-tenant dispute by Tenant-Plaintiff Daniel Bejines (“Plaintiff), initially in propria persona, against Landlord-Defendant MDT Properties, Inc. (“Defendant”). On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint, alleging fraud and demanding, inter alia, that he be returned the security deposit he paid to lease an apartment from Defendant from January to March of 2021. On November 30, 2021, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to each cause of action in the initial Complaint. On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, alleging: (1) deceit; (2) bad faith penalty withholding of security deposit; (3) nuisance; and (4) constructive eviction. On May 10, 2022 the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint as to the first and second causes of action, and sustained the demurrer as to the third and fourth causes of action with only 20 days’ leave to amend from notice of the order. (Minute Order, 05/10/22, pp. 11-12.) Plaintiff did not appear at that hearing and no proof of service of the order was filed demonstrating that Plaintiff was given notice as ordered. (See id. at p. 12.)

At the case management conference on July 14, 2022, corrected by nunc pro tunc, the Court ordered Defendant to file an answer to the second cause of action of the First Amended Complaint. (Minute Orders, 07/14/22 and 10/17/22.) Defendant filed an answer on October 25, 2022. At the case management conference on January 5, 2023, Plaintiff appeared and the Court ordered that a Second Amended Complaint could not be filed without a motion for leave. (Minute Order, 01/05/23.) The parties attended a mandatory settlement conference but the case did not resolve. At the next case management conference on August 1, 2023, the parties stipulated to transfer the action to the limited jurisdiction court. (Minute Order, 08/01/23.)

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint. No opposition has been filed to date.

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also 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 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 does not explain the nature of the proposed amendment. He simply declares he is “focusing the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.” (Motion, Bejines Decl., p. 5:2-3.) Simply attaching a copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint, as Plaintiff has done, is not sufficient to meet the mandatory requirements set forth above.

Therefore, Plaintiff Daniel Bejines’ Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint is DENIED.