Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV40899, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40899    Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

 

TENTATIVE RULING  

 

DEPARTMENT 

32 

HEARING DATE 

September 26, 2022

CASE NUMBER 

20STCV40899

MOTIONS 

Leave to Amend Complaint

MOVING PARTY 

Plaintiff Andrea Rothstein

OPPOSING PARTY 

Defendant 2016 Argyle, LLC

 

MOTION 

 

            On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff Andrea Rothstein filed a Complaint against Defendant 2016 Argyle, LLC alleging two causes of action for (1) Negligence and (2) Premises Liability.  Plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint.  Defendant opposes the motion. 

 

ANALYSIS 

 

Amendments to Pleadings: General Provisions

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”
            To wit, without notice to the other party the Court has wide discretion to allow either party (i) to add or strike the name of a party or (ii) to correct a mistake in the name of a party or a mistake in any other respect “in furtherance of justice” and “on any terms as may be proper.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also Marriage of Liss (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1429.)  Alternatively, after notice to the other party, the Court has wide discretion to allow either party to amend pleadings “upon any terms as may be just.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).  Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” 

            Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is liberally granted.  (Berman vs. Bromberg (1986) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489 [this has been an established policy in California since 1901] (citing Frost v. Whitter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Thomas v. Bruza (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 150, 155).)  The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.”  (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.)  Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].) 

            “The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 6:636 (hereafter Weil & Brown).)  Denial of a motion to amend is rarely justified if the motion is timely made and granting the motion will not prejudice the opposing party. (Id. at ¶ 6:639, citations omitted.)  However, if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Id. at ¶ 6:655, citations omitted. Absent prejudice, any claimed delay alone is not grounds for denial. “If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:653 (citing Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565).)  “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.  . . .  But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory which would make admissible evidence damaging to the opposing party is not the kind of prejudice the court will consider.”  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:656, citations omitted.)

            “Even if some prejudice is shown, the judge may still permit the amendment but impose conditions, as the Court is authorized to grant leave ‘on such terms as may be proper.’”  (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 6:663, citation omitted.)  For example, the court may cause the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs and fees incurred in preparing for trial. (Id. at ¶ 6:664 (citing Fuller v. Vista Del Arroyo Hotel (1941) 42 Cal.App.2d 400, 404).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324: Procedural Requirements

            Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

            “(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;         

            (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

            (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

            In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

            “(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.”

            Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add three causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4.   

 

            In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.  First, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective because Plaintiff failed to fully comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.  Second, allowing plaintiff to add three new causes of action to her complaint with the impending discovery cut off will result in unfair prejudice to Defendant.  Third, Defendant claims that the proposed amended complaint is defective as it lacks sufficient facts to support the proposed new causes of action. 

            Here, Plaintiff has set forth in the proposed amended complaint the allegations she seeks to add to the current complaint by page, paragraph, and line number in particular the causes of action Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, and Violation of Civil Code 1942.4.  Additionally, Plaintiff has renumbered the paragraphs and page numbers in the amended complaint to differentiate it from the original complaint.  (See Declaration of Benjamin A. Sampson, Exhibit B.)  Moreover, Plaintiff advances the declaration of Benjamin A. Sampson, counsel for Plaintiff, in which he sets forth sufficient information about the effect of the amendment; why the amendment is necessary and proper; when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (See Declaration of Benjamin A. Sampson, ¶¶ 4-11.)  As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with Rule 3.1324.

            Regarding the potential prejudice to Defendant should the Court grant Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed and served the motion on February 25, 2022.  But Plaintiff apparently was not able to reserve a hearing date on the motion until September 26, 2022 because of the Court’s impacted law and motion calendar.  Thus, the Court finds that timing of the hearing close to the trial date and discovery cut off is not the fault of Plaintiff.  Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that the parties will need additional time to conduct discovery regarding the additional claims as proposed.  Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court will continue the trial and the attendant cut off dates accordingly to prevent any prejudice to the parties. 

            Lastly, with respect to Defendant’s assertion that the proposed amended complaint is flawed, the Court will generally not consider the merits of the proposed amendment in determining whether to grant leave to amend. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.)  The Court also notes that Defendant may address the propriety of Plaintiff’s additional causes of action in the proposed amended complaint through an appropriate motion. 

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and orders Plaintiff to file and serve the proposed amended complaint within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.  In addition, the Court orders as follows: