Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV37275, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37275    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs Kristien Amer, Eileen Hirsch, Megan Klimkos, Marisa Westphal, Mary Danner, Nicholas Scheib, Adilya Kamiyeva, and Marlene Maro

Resp. Party:    Defendant David Carlin

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The FAC is to be filed and served within 10 days.

BACKGROUND:

On October 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Kristien Amer, Eileen Hirsch, Megan Klimkos, Marisa Westphal, Mary Danner, Nicholas Scheib, Adilya Kamiyeva, and Marlene Maro filed their Complaint against Defendants LA Valley Management, LLC, LA Valley Management Co, Mayfair Square, LLC, and David Carlin. This case regards causes of action arising from Plaintiffs tenancies with Defendants.

On November 12, 2021, Defendants LA Valley Management, LLC, Mayfair Square, LLC, and David Carlin filed their Answer.

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

On March 8, 2023, Defendant David Carlin (“Defendant”) filed his Opposition. Defendant concurrently filed Declaration of Silvia Schaffer.

On March 14, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

On March 15, 2023, Defendant filed his Notice of Errata Regarding Declaration of Silvia C. Schaffer. Defendant concurrently filed Amended Declaration of Silvia C. Schaffer.

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, Ex. 1).  

Second, the Motion discusses exactly all the items that would be deleted and added, as well as exactly where those deletions and additions are located. (Motion, p. 2:9–10.)

Finally, Plaintiffs submitted a separate supporting declaration from Sebastian M. Medvei. The Declaration describes the effect of the amendment (to add two additional causes of action, predicated on the same general allegations), why the amendment is necessary and proper (to include causes of action applicable to this matter), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (February 3, 2023), and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier (Plaintiffs’ Counsel discovered the availability of these causes of action when researching affirmative defenses in a similar case) (Decl. Medvei, ¶ 5.) 

B.      Prejudice

Defendant Carlin opposes the Motion. Defendant argues: (1) that the Motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; (2) that the Motion is inexcusably late and would not further the interests of justice; (3) that Defendant will be prejudiced by the proposed amendment; and (4) that Plaintiffs’ new claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (Opposition, pp. 3:2, 3:17–21, 5:4, 7:6.)

Plaintiffs argue the following in their Reply: (1) that the Motion is not late and could even be granted in the midst of trial because it is a purely legal amendment without any new facts being asserted; (2) that the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations and could presently be filed as an independent action; (3) there is no prejudice to Defendant; and (4) the Motion is not procedurally defective. (Reply, pp. 2:1–3, 3:9–11, 4:11–12, 5:12.)

The Court disagrees with Defendant’s arguments.

First, as discussed above, the Motion complies with rule 3.1324 and is not procedurally defective.

Second, the Motion is not late, and trial is still nearly five months away.

Third, as no new allegations are made, any prejudice to Defendant appears to be minor.

Finally, the statute of limitations is not an issue here because of the relation back doctrine. “A new cause of action in an¿amended complaint is held to relate back to the earlier pleaded claims if the later cause of action ‘(1) rest[s] on the¿same general set of facts, (2) involve[s] the¿same injury, and (3) refer[s] to the¿same instrumentality, as the original one.’” (Brumley v. FDCC Cal., Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 312, 323, quoting Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 409, emphases omitted.) That is the situation here, and the Court finds that the new causes of action relate back to the earlier pleaded claims. The causes of action thus come within the statute of limitations period.

The Court GRANTS the Motion.  

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The FAC is to be filed and served within 10 days.