Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00222, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV00222    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/25/22

Case #22CHCV00222

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed on 8/23/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Archie Booker; Toussaint Booker; Fabiola Quezada; Allen Medina and Lizbeth Medina

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Javier Perez

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

RULING: The motion is granted. 

This action arises out of disputes between residential tenants and their landlord.  On 3/30/22, the tenants, Plaintiffs Archie Booker; Toussaint Booker; Fabiola Quezada; Allen Medina and Lizbeth Medina (Plaintiffs) filed this action against their landlords, Defendants Javier Perez; CCDJ Inc. dba RPM Executives; Craig Scott Gagne; Dennis Melvin Franklin and Does 1-50 (Defendants) for: (1) Violation of Rights Under Title VIII of The Civil Rights Act Of 1968; (2)  Denial Of Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of Rights Under California's FEHA (Govt. Code § 12955, Et Seq.); (3) Violation of Rights Under the Provisions of California's Civil Code § 51, Et Seq; (4) Negligence [Civ. Code § 1714(A), 3333; (5) Breach Of Warranty of Habitability; (6) Breach Of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (7) Premises Liability (Negligence Per Se); (8) Nuisance and (9) Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress.

On 6/8/22, Defendant Javier Perez (Perez) answered the complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against Toussaint Booker for: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.  On 8/12/22, Toussaint Booker answered the Cross-Complaint. 

Thereafter, Plaintiffs’ counsel realized that he mistakenly failed to sign the original Complaint.  (Ekpenisi Decl.).  Additionally, on 4/17/22, Plaintiffs’ contend that an incident occurred that gives rise to additional claims for Retaliation and Harassment (by all Plaintiffs), Assault (by Plaintiff Toussaint Booker) and Battery (by Toussaint Booker) against Defendant Javier Perez.  Id.  Therefore, on or about 7/21/22, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defense counsel stipulate to the filing of a First Amended Complaint. Id.  Ultimately, defense counsel refused to so stipulate.  Id.  As a result, on 8/23/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting them leave to file a First Amended Complaint.  Defendant Javier Perez (Perez) has opposed the motion. 

At any time before or after the commencement of trial, in furtherance of justice and upon such terms as may be proper, the Court may allow a party to amend any pleading.  See CCP 473(a)(1); CCP 576. 

Contrary to the assertion in the opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs did not unreasonably delay in seeking leave to amend their complaint and allowing the amendment will not cause any prejudice.  More importantly, even if the approximate four-month delay from the time the incident occurred on 4/17/22 to the filing of the instant motion on 8/23/22 could be considered unreasonable, it did not cause any of the defendants, including Perez, any prejudice as the case is still in the pleading stages.  Additionally, the proposed additional causes of action arise out of the same incident which forms the basis for Perez’s cross-claims.  (See Ekpenisi Decl. Ex. 4 – proposed FAC ¶¶120, 125, 132; Cross-Complaint ¶¶7-11).  As such, it would be in the interests of judicial economy to try the additional claims in this action.    

Plaintiffs are ordered to separately file their First Amended Complaint which is attached to the declaration of attorney Ekpenisi as Exhibit 4.