Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV25817, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25817    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority

Resp. Party:    Defendants Katya Bakalinskaya, Michael Bykov, and VMB, LLC

The Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

        On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority filed its Complaint against Defendants Katya Bakalinskaya, VMB LLC, and Michael Bykov on causes of action arising from the alleged development of property on a conservation easement.

        On September 8, 2022, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

        On December 8, 2022, the Court scheduled trial in this matter for December 18, 2023.

        On November 15, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s ex parte request, the Court continued the trial date from December 18, 2023 to May 28, 2024. The Court ordered that no further continuances were allowed.

        On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Lis Pendens.

        On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. In support of its Motion, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Samantha B. Marconi; (2) Proposed Order; and (3) Proof of Service.

        On March 21, 2024, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion. In support of their Opposition, Defendants concurrently filed Declaration of Elizabeth M. Thompson.

        On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Reply in support of the Motion.

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. (Ibid.)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file its proposed First Amended Complaint. (Motion, p. 9:26–27.) Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant leave to amend so that Plaintiff may: (1) include previously unknown and related allegations; and (2) assert a cause of action for declaratory relief. (Id. at p. 8:20–23.)

Defendants disagree, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing its Motion; and (2) that Plaintiff’s new cause of action is time barred. (Opposition, pp. 5:12, 8:1.)

In its Reply, Plaintiff argues: (1) that Defendants will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the Motion; (2) that Plaintiff was not dilatory in bringing its Motion; (3) that the new cause of action is not time barred because Defendants’ trespass is continuing; (4) that Defendants cannot acquire a prescriptive easement against Plaintiff because Plaintiff is a public entity; and (5) that the Declaration of Elizabeth M. Thompson because it is inadmissible hearsay and without proper authentication. (Reply, pp. 2:5–6, 3:7, 4:10–11, 6:5–6, 6:16–18.)

B.      California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324

Plaintiff complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

First, Plaintiff’s Counsel submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (Motion, Exh. 1.)

Second, Plaintiff’s Counsel also submitted a red-lined copy of the proposed amended pleading is red-lined version, which shows exactly where additions and deletions would be made. (Decl. Marconi, Exh. A.)

        Finally, Plaintiff’s Counsel declares: (1) that the effect of the proposed pleading is to include allegations related to Defendants’ use and improvement of a building located on an adjacent property; (2) that the proposed amendments are necessary and proper to allow Plaintiff to seek relief for all of Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct related to the subject matter of this action in a single lawsuit; (3) that the facts giving rise to the proposed amendments was discovered in or around September 2023; and (4) that the reason the request for the proposed amendments was not made earlier was because of a mediation and ongoing negotiation between the Parties. (Decl. Marconi, ¶¶ 6–10.)

C.      Timeliness and Prejudice

        According to Plaintiff’s Counsel:

(1)       Plaintiff learned in or about September 2023 that “it needed to file an amended complaint to include allegations related to Defendants’ use and improvement of the building located on the Adjacent Property.” (Decl. Marconi, ¶ 7.)

(2)       Plaintiff’s Counsel then waited until November 2023 to begin drafting the Motion. (Ibid.)

(3)       Plaintiff’s Counsel then stopped work on the Motion in December 2023 so that the Parties could mediate this matter. (Ibid.)

(4)       The Parties attended a mediation on January 26, 2024, which was not fruitful. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

(5)       Plaintiff’s Counsel then waited until March 12, 2024 to file the Motion.

The timeline provided does not explain why the Motion was not filed earlier. Plaintiff’s Counsel admits that the proposed amendments were known as of September 2023 — but there is no adequate explanation for why the requested for leave to amend was not made around that time. Instead, it seems the Motion was not even done by December 2023 and that another six weeks or so passed after the mediation before the Motion was filed.

The Court’s concern is the timeliness of this Motion. The Court has previously continued trial in this matter and stated that no further continuances would be allowed. (Minute Order dated November 15, 2023.)  The Court does not understand why Plaintiff did not inform the Court of a possible amendment to the Complaint when its ex parte motion to continue the trial was granted on November 15, 2023. 

Trial is scheduled for May 28, 2024.  The proposed amendments include the alleged trespass of an adjacent property that was not mentioned in the Complaint. Accordingly, it appears to the Court that further discovery might be necessary. Further discovery would require a further continuance of trial. There is not sufficient time for discovery and discovery-related motions without either a continuance or a very high risk of prejudice to Defendants.

It does not appear to the Court that the proposed amendments involve compulsory causes of action that would be barred by denial of leave to amend the pleading. On the contrary, Plaintiff’s Counsel indicates that a second action could be brought regarding the allegations surrounding the adjacent property. (Decl. Marconi, ¶ 10.)

The Court DENIES the Motion.

The Court need not and does not reach further issues, such as whether the new allegations are time barred by the statute of limitations.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED.