Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: BC672129, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC672129 Hearing Date: December 21, 2022 Dept: 26
Bachhus v. Thomson, et al.
MOTION
TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
(CCP
§ 464)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Haroun Bachhus’ Motion
to File Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On August 11, 2017,
Plaintiff Haroun Bacchus (“Plaintiff”) filed
the Complaint in this action against Defendant Misty Thomson (“Defendant”) in
the unlimited jurisdiction court. The Complaint originally alleged Defendant
illegally locked Plaintiff out of their apartment in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure section 789.3 and sought monetary and injunctive relief. The
operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 18,
2019. On January 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings as to the first, second, third and fifth causes of action of the
Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. (Minute Order, 01/12/22.) The
only remaining cause of action is for beach of contract re: nonpayment of the
utility bill. (Ibid.) The Court then reclassified the action as a
limited jurisdiction case and it was transferred to Department 26 in the Spring
Street Courthouse. (Notice of Reclassification, 01/26/22.) On June 22, 2022,
the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling on the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Minute Order, 06/22/22.)
Plaintiff filed
the instant Motion to File Supplemental Complaint on November 29, 2022. Defendant
filed an opposition on December 6, 2022 and Plaintiff replied on December 14,
2022.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to
file a Supplemental Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 464,
subdivision (a), which states in relevant part: “[t]he plaintiff and defendant,
respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or
answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former
complaint or answer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 464, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff seeks to file a Supplemental Complaint
with respect to Defendant’s share of the utility service in the subject
apartment from after May 22, 2019. (Motion, Bacchus Decl., ¶4.) The amount of
damages on this cause of action has alleged increased from $188.87 to $670.89.
(Id. at Exh. 1, pp. 1-10.) The increase in the amount of damages owed
for breach of utility agreement are facts material to the case that occurred
after the Second Amended Complaint was filed. (Motion, Bacchus Decl., ¶4.) Nor
does there appear to be any prejudice to Defendant from allowing the supplement
to the pleading. The opposition inaccurately characterizes the proposed Supplemental
Complaint as a new cause of action. However, there is no change to the facts of
the cause of action alleged beyond the amount of damages incurred during the
pendency of this action. The Court finds leave to file the Supplemental
Complaint is appropriate.
Plaintiff Haroun Bachhus’ Motion
to File Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.