Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV19824, Date: 2023-10-18 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: 22STCV19824    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.

Resp. Party:    Defendant Living the Dream

The Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiffs Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr. filed their Complaint against Defendants Living the Dream, Applied Plant Science, Inc., California Numbered Company 4009746, and Michael Straumietis. Plaintiffs plead a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

On August 24, 2022, Defendants Applied Plant Science and Michael Straumietis filed their Answer to the Complaint and their Verification.

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On March 2, 2023, the Court struck portions of paragraphs 5, 22, 24, and 46 from the FAC.

On March 9, 2023, Defendant Living the Dream filed its Answer to the FAC.

On March 16, 2023, Defendant Living the Dream filed its First Amended Answer (FAA) to the FAC.

On June 1, 2023, the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Plaintiffs regarding the tenth and twelfth affirmative defenses in the FAA.

On July 20, 2023, the Court found related cases 22STCV10347 and 22STCV19824, and the Court designated 22STCV10347 as the lead case.

On August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”).

On September 13, 2023, Defendant Living the Dream (“Defendant”) filed its Opposition to the Motion.

        On October 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

        “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

“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 declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

“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.)

II.       Discussion

Plaintiffs move for leave to file their Proposed Second Amended Complaint, which would include new claims and new parties. (Motion, p. 14:13–14.)

Defendant argues that leave to amend should be denied because the Proposed Second Amended Complaint is duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in the civil action. (Opposition, p. 6:20–21.)

In their Reply (which was timely filed on October 11, 2023, but which still came after the original tentative order was released on October 10, 2023), Plaintiffs reiterate their arguments, as well as arguing: (1) that the Court should reconsider the tentative decision in light of the Reply; and (2) that the amendments should be allowed, and the cases consolidated, rather than the amendments denied with this case dismissed. (Reply, pp. 1:2–4, 5:19–12.)

The Court agrees with Defendant’s argument.

This case (Case No. 22STCV19824) regards an alleged unlawful detainer. Given that this case began more than one year ago, it is long past the time in which this case should have been resolved. Further, this case is now moot because, as Plaintiffs admit, Defendant vacated the real property at issue on July 10, 2023. (Motion, p. 13:17–18 and Decl. Goldberg, ¶ 7.) No trial is presently scheduled in this matter.  However a trial is scheduled for March 4, 2024 in the related case.

Rather than amend the FAC, it appears to the Court that this case should be dismissed. Dismissal would not prejudice Plaintiffs at all because, as Defendant correctly notes, the lead case (Case No. 22STCV10347) is a civil case that already includes (via the Hughes’ Second Amended Cross-Complaint in that matter) most of the causes of action and most of the parties that would be involved with the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiffs wish to amend their Second Amended Cross-Complaint in the lead case in the manner they have proposed in this case, they can file the appropriate motion. 

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is DENIED.