Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCP02375, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02375    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 4, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer  

Moving Party: Respondent City of Los Angeles  

Responding Party: Petitioner Crane Boulevard Safety Coalition

T/R:    RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ANSWER IS GRANTED. THE AMENDED ANSWER SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS.

            RESPONDENT 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.

BACKGROUND

            On August 7, 2023, Petitioner Crane Boulevard Safety Coalition filed the operative First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (FAP) against Respondent City of Los Angeles, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code 11.5.13; (3) violation of Mount Washington/Glassell Park Specific Plan; (4) violation of California Due Process/Fair Hearing; and (5) Patterns and Practices that Violate the Specific Plan, Constitutional Rights of Land Use Appellants and Persons Entitled to Notice and to be Heard. This action arises from the review process for a proposed house development at 464-466 Crane Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA.

            Before the Court is Respondent’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer to the FAP.

ANALYSIS

The trial court has discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  Courts liberally permit amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.) An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion. (Ibid.) “[L]iberality should be displayed in allowing amendments to answers, for a defendant denied leave to amend is permanently deprived of a defense.” (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)

Respondent seeks to add two affirmative defenses and legal theories to their Answer based on facts disclosed in the administrative record. The facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered by counsel for Respondent in the last week of February 2024, while analyzing the administrative record and relevant law to prepare discovery responses and brief the merits of the case.

Petitioner argues that Respondent seeks to add a defense to the Brown Act, which is not in the operative pleading. But Petitioner indicated in meet and confer correspondence that it seeks to add a cause of action under the Brown Act, and Petitioner has argued that Defendant’s pre-PLUM process violates the Brown Act. And the FAP alleges that Respondent engaged in an unlawful pre-PLUM Committee Process. Adding a defense based on such cause of action would allow Respondent to defend this issue and would not prevent Petitioner from addressing it.

            Allowing Respondent to amend its Answer is appropriate. Petitioner has shown no prejudice. The motion is GRANTED.