Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV04106, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 23STCV04106    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 40

23STCV04106 American Central Plaza, LLC v. Day to Day Imports, Inc., et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

                                                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

      This action arises from Defendants’ alleged breach of a commercial lease agreement. Defendants allegedly failed to pay rent. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) Defendants did not vacate the property until April 20, 2022. (Id.) Plaintiff filed this complaint on February 24, 2023, alleging claims for breach of contract and fraud.

                                                                                               II.        ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to add claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligence per se, and for strict liability for ultra hazardous activities. Plaintiff argues that at the time the complaint was filed, it was unaware of the extent of any damage to the real property by Defendants. Plaintiff has since discovered new facts after engaging an environmental testing company to perform a site assessment, which revealed a basis for alleging claims for illegal storage of hazardous materials.

      Defendants oppose the motion because Plaintiff does not explain why the motion could not have been brought sooner. Plaintiff’s amended pleading changes the nature of the case from a breach of contract/fraud claim to one involving hazardous waste damage. This allegation requires expert testimony and will increase the cost of litigation. Defendants will be required to conduct discovery. Defendants will suffer prejudice. Trial is presently set for May 20, 2025, leaving Defendants insufficient time to defend.

      Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

                                                                                       III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

      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.) The amendments here relate to a different set of facts.

      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.) The liberal policy permitting amendment at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, "should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party”. (Atkinson at 761.)

                                                                                                IV.       DISCUSSION

      The motion does not meet the requirements of the California Rules of Court. While Plaintiff includes a copy of the amended pleading, Plaintiff does not state what allegations are proposed to be added and/or deleted and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.)  The declaration in support of the motion does not specify the effect of the amendment, when the facts were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id.; See Decl of Earle H. Cohen, Esq.)

      The complaint, filed on February 24, 2023, alleges that Plaintiff did not have knowledge that Defendants stored illegal substances on the property thereby resulting in hazardous waste being spilled onto the property. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff had knowledge at the time the complaint was filed that there was potentially hazardous waste damage to the real property, but Plaintiff does not explain why an environmental assessment was not made then, or why it was not made until now (or when that assessment was made) or when new facts were discovered.

      Given the present trial date, discovery cutoff will occur Monday, April 21, 2025 (30 days before trial) leaving 20 days to complete all fact discovery.  Plaintiff proposes to add four causes of action leaving Defendants with insufficient time to reasonably discover facts supporting the new claims.

                                                                                               V.        CONCLUSION

      Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Rules of Court that requiring specific information to be provided in the motion leaves the court without any pertinent facts on which to exercise its liberal discretion. Defendants have shown that it will suffer prejudice if the four new claims are added at this stage. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.