Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV37378, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37378 Hearing Date: February 8, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for Leave to Amend and File First Amended Complaint
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Nichols Canyon Neighborhood Association
Resp. Party: Defendants Betty Sharafi Shalom and Daniel Shalom as Trustees of
the Shalom Family Trust, Betty Sharafi Shalom, Daniel Shalom, and Jordan Shalom
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and File
First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND:
On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Nichols Canyon
Neighborhood Association filed its Complaint against Defendants Betty Sharafi
Shalom and Daniel Shalom, as trustees of the Shalom Family Trust, on causes of
action of breach of contract, specific performance of contract, injunctive
relief, and fraud in the inducement.
On March 9, 2022, Defendants filed their
Answer.
On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff amended its
Complaint to substitute Doe One with Betty Sharafi Shalom, Doe Two with Daniel
Shalom, and Doe Three with Jordan Shalom.
On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Lis
Pendens on the Subject Property, located at 2251 Nichols Canyon Road, Los
Angeles, CA 90046.
On August 29, 2022, the individual Defendants
filed their respective Answers.
On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed its
Motion for Leave to Amend and File First Amended Complaint.
On January 26, 2023, Defendants filed their
Opposition.
On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its
Reply.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
A. 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).)
B. Discussion
Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file
its First Amended Complaint to: (1) allege Defendants are personally liable,
rather than liable as trustees, on the bases that Defendants cannot prove the
existence of a family trust and that Defendants have acted negligently and
intentionally to cause irreversible damage; and (2) remove the first cause of
action due to the payment of certain fees. (Motion, p. 3:20–27.)
Defendants oppose the Motion, requesting that
it be denied, unless: (1) trial and related dates (for responding to the new
pleading and for discovery) are continued; and (2) Defendants are granted the
opportunity to file a new motion for summary judgment. (Opposition, p.
13:11–14.) Defendants argue: (1) that Plaintiff has not made the showing
required to obtain leave to amend; (2) that Plaintiff does not explain the
effect of the amendment; (3) that Plaintiff does not say why amendment is
necessary and proper; (4) that Plaintiff’s explanation of discovery as the
grounds for the proposed amendments falls short; (5) that Plaintiff
unjustifiably delayed in seeking leave to amend; (6) that Defendants will be
unfairly prejudiced if leave to amend is granted because of their pending
motion for summary judgment, the pending trial date, and the lack of time to do
further discovery; and (7) that the proposed amendments fail to state a cause
of action.
The Court disagrees with Defendants arguments.
Plaintiff has sufficiently followed the procedural requirements. (Motion, Dec.
Hall, ¶¶ 3–9, 11–16 and Ex. 1.) Plaintiff has sufficiently explained how the
discovery obtained has led to the timely need to amend its pleading, including
by adding two causes of action for (1) negligent destruction of protected trees
and easement and (2) intentional destruction of protected trees and easement.
(Motion, p. 3:3–9; Decl. Hall, ¶¶ 9–14; and Ex. 1, ¶¶ 34–40.) The “new”
allegations in the proposed First Amended Complaint do not regard recent
actions by Defendants but rather newly discovered information by Plaintiff
about permits (or the lack thereof) and actions previously taken that are the
subject of the original pleading. As Trial is still more than two months away
and the proposed amendments merely remove a cause of action, add two more based
on prior allegations, and clarify that the causes of action are also against
Defendants in their individual capacities, the Court finds that the potential
prejudice to Defendants of granting leave for this First Amended Complaint
would be minor in degree.
The Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and File First Amended Complaint.
II.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and File
First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.