Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV12900, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV12900    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs Rodolfo Salazar, Lisa Tatum, and London de Salazar

Resp. Party:    Defendants Ricardo Oquendo and R.O. Housing, LLC

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs Rodolfo Salazar, Lisa Tatum and London de Salazar filed their Complaint against Defendants Ricardo Oquendo and R.O. Housing, LLC on causes of action arising from Plaintiffs’ tenancy with Defendants.

On April 9, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff Lisa Tatum as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff London de Salazar.

On July 23, 2021, Defendant Ricardo Oquendo filed their Answer.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

On April 17, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposition.

On April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.)

The court may also, in its discretion and 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.)

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The Court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

II.        Discussion

A.      Rules of Court

Plaintiffs complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

First, Plaintiffs submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (Motion, Exh. A.)

Second, Plaintiffs also submitted a red-lined version of the proposed pleading, which shows exactly all the items that would be deleted and added, as well as exactly where those deletions and additions are located. (Motion, Exh. B.)

Finally, Plaintiffs submitted a separate supporting declaration from Ronald D. Dorfman that describes the effect of the amendment (to add new causes of action, to add new allegations, to clarify some allegations, and to amend the prayer for relief), why the amendment is necessary and proper (to allow facts recently discovered to be included in the pleading), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (“recently”, as part of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s investigation of the case, although it is not exactly clear when that was), and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier (because the discovery of the new facts and evidence was recent). (Motion, Decl. Dorfman, ¶¶ 3–4.)

B.      Prejudice

Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing: (1) that leave should not be mechanically applied; (2) that Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint is sufficient; and (3) that Plaintiffs delay in filing the Motion and the First Amended Complaint constitute prejudice to Defendants. (Opposition, pp. 4:4–5, 4:20, 5:15.)

The Court agrees with Defendants that it should not mechanically or automatically grant a motion for leave to amend. However, upon consideration of the circumstances, it appears appropriate and just to grant leave here. The new causes of action and the updated allegations do not appear to require additional discovery. Moreover, as trial is nearly six months after the hearing on this Motion, the Court is confident that Defendants will have ample time to prepare.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.