Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV01097, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01097    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case stems from a dispute concerning a commercial lease.  Plaintiff Sixth Street Realty, L.P. has brought two causes of action for breach of lease (unpaid rent) and breach of written guaranty.  Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint to update the future damages.  Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

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 2023) ¶ 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, 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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s counsel has included a declaration indicating:

• “This action arises out of a commercial Lease (Lease”) between Plaintiff and Defendant Alpha Real Estate Advisors, LLC (“Alpha”).  The lease was for a period of 3 and ½ years, commencing on May 1, 2022 and ending on November 30, 2025.  Defendants Braden Crocket (“Crocket”) and Dalton Barnes (“Barnes”) were guarantors of the lease.  Plaintiff filed its original complaint for breach of lease against Defendant Alpha, Crocket and Barnes based on nonpayment of rent on March 13, 2023.  On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint to allege additional damages for unpaid rents.”  (Petersen Decl. ¶ 2.)

• “Defendant Alpha vacated and surrendered possession of the premises to Plaintiff on June 16, 2023.” (Petersen Decl. ¶ 3.)

• “Defendants filed their answer to the First Amended Complaint on July 20, 2023, and filed an amended answer to the First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2023.” (Petersen Decl. ¶ 4.)

• “Plaintiff now brings the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint.  The motion for leave to amend the complaint seeks to amend the complaint to allege additional future rent damages now that Defendant Alpha has vacated the premises and Plaintiff has obtained a new tenant at the property, thereby allowing Plaintiff to calculate its future rent damages.”  (Petersen Decl. ¶ 5.)

Thus, the declaration makes clear that once Alpha vacated the premises in June and Plaintiff subsequently leased the premises to a new tenant, Plaintiff is now able to calculate damages with certainty as the difference between the rent Alpha agreed to pay and what the new tenant is paying.

Plaintiff has also lodged a copy of the proposed second amended complaint.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Having found Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements, and in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s request is unopposed, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

Further, the Court deems the Second Amended Complaint received on October 5, 2023 filed as of that date, and orders Plaintiff to serve the Second Amened Complaint on or before November 22, 2023. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same. 

DATED:  November 8, 2023                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court