Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00459, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 22CMCV00459 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00459
Canteen SJC Properties, LLC v. Robertson’s Ready Mix, Ltd., et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The complaint alleges claims for declaratory relief and partition
of real property in which Plaintiff and Defendant, Robertson’s Ready Mix, Ltd.,
(“Ready-Mix”) are co-owners. Plaintiff alleges that Ready-Mix entered into a
lease agreement with Adams Bennett Investments (“Adams”) without Plaintiff’s
consent.
Plaintiff argues that after taking
the deposition of Ready-Mix’s person most qualified (“PMQ”), Plaintiff
discovered facts to support the validity of a lease agreement between Plaintiff
and Ready-Mix, that Ready-Mix breached the agreement and failed to surrender
the premises on expiration of the lease terms. Defendant’s PMQ testified that Ready-Mix
entered into a long-term lease agreement with Adams in order to prevent Ready-Mix’s
loss of control over the premises and to provide leverage against Plaintiff. Plaintiff
obtained further testimony that Ready-Mix controls Adams and RRM Properties,
Ltd. (“Properties”) and uses each as a shell. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an
order amending the complaint to add Properties, exclude the partition claim,
and to assert new claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, accounting, and ouster.
In opposition, Defendants argue
that leave should be denied since the proposed amended complaint will change
the nature of the action from partition to one for contract-related claims.
Granting the motion will require a continuance of trial, presently set for July
31, 2024. All new claims could have been alleged at the time this action was
commenced. Defendants will suffer prejudice from the proposed amendments
because Defendants will have one month before discovery cutoff to prepare for
an entirely different case.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants
blocked the PMQ depositions for over six months, and then refused to stipulate
to the amendments. The parties have a pending stipulation and order to continue
trial filed on May 10, 2024.
Leave to
amend is permitted at the court’s discretion upon any terms that may be just.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 473 subd. (a)(1).) The statute is liberally construed to
permit amendment of the pleadings “unless an attempt is made to present an
entirely different set of facts by way of the amendment.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)
If the motion is timely made,
and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the opposing
party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles
County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Where denial of the motion
will result in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious
cause of action, “it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Id.)
Amendments are permitted up to the date of trial or during trial where no
prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003)
109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)
While the proposed amended complaint changes the nature
of the case, the Court’s file reflects that the parties stipulated to continue
trial to April 14, 2025, which the Court signed and filed on May 13, 2024. Accordingly,
any prejudice to Defendants as a result of the newly asserted claims is
mitigated.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the amended pleading forthwith.