Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV00363, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00363    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 25, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend

Moving Party: Plaintiff Huasha Liu

Responding Party: Defendants Elizabeth K. Boyajian, Housep Boyajian, Silva Natalia Boyajian and Talar Liz Boyajian

T/R:     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.  

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.  

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (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).)

It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to filed a second amended complaint to add a cause of action for elder abuse. This action is an easement and boundary dispute between neighbors. Plaintiff asserts that since she turned 65 in 2022, Defendants have showed “reckless disregard for her well-being as an elderly individual,” by threatening to terminate access to the subject easement, falsely accusing Plaintiff of wrongdoing, and endangering Plaintiff with a vehicle.

In opposition, Defendants assert Plaintiff has failed to properly file and serve this motion, serving Defendants with at least four different versions of the motion. Defendants also emphasize that Plaintiff has not included a red-lined version of the complaint. And Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because the proposed amendment does not establish a cause of action for elder abuse.

The Court will allow Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint; amendment is liberally granted. Defendants may challenge the sufficiency of the amended pleading through demurrer or summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.