Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV06266, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06266 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 Dept: 40
23STCV06266
Samantha Gerlach v. Brett Hazard
Thursday,
May 1, 2025
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
alleges that she rents residential real property from Defendant, who permitted
uninhabitable conditions to persist at the property. Defendant allegedly began
harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff, who denied Defendant’s request for
“cash for keys.” Plaintiff alleges five causes of action for:
1.
Breach of the common law duty of care
2.
Retaliation in violation of Civ. Code, § 1942.5
3.
Breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment
4.
Violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance
5.
Unfair Business practices
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Motion filed February 21, 2025.
Plaintiff
requests leave to file a first amended complaint to add a claim for unlawful
rent overcharge in violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 151.10, supported
by facts of Defendant’s service of a defective rent increase notice, and Defendant’s
continued demand to collect the increased rent. Plaintiff proposes to add
supplemental authority for the prayer for attorney’s fees and a prayer for
declaratory relief.
Plaintiff
argues that through the course of discovery, Defendant produced a copy of a
notice of rent increase dated January 6, 2020 . At his deposition on March 6,
2024, Defendant testified that he served the notice on January 6, 2020, and
that he thereafter continued to demand, collect, and retain rent from the
Plaintiff, although the notice of rent increase was defective.
Plaintiff
contends that no new discovery should be required, since the facts pertaining
to the new cause of action concern documents and testimony that have already
been exchanged. Plaintiff does not anticipate that a continuation of trial will
be necessary.
B.
Opposition filed April 18, 2025, by Vanderford
& Ruiz
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in making this motion. Plaintiff’s
counsel’s “unintentional oversight” in making the motion is insufficient to
overcome the prejudice to Defendant. The new claims are barred by the
three-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff did not comply with procedural
rules for filing this motion. Defendant will suffer prejudice if the court
grants leave to amend.
C.
Opposition and joinder filed April 18, 2025, by Dignity
Law Group.
This
opposition incorporates the opposition filed by Vanderford & Ruiz, also
Defendant’s counsel, and adds that Plaintiff concedes in her own declaration
that there could be an increased need to conduct further discovery. Discovery
will close four days before this motion is heard. Continuous accrual applies to
avoid the statute of limitations because Defendant continued to charge
Plaintiff more than the maximum allowable rent each month. The continuing
violations doctrine also applies to avoid the limitations bar.
D.
Reply filed April 23, 2025.
Absent
prejudice, the motion should be granted. Otherwise, Plaintiff will file a new
lawsuit for one cause of action for illegal rent increase. The statute of
limitations does not apply because a defective rent increase is wholly void and
a nullity for all purposes.
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.)
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
A.
Procedural
requirements.
Plaintiff substantially complied with the
procedures required to request leave to amend. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 subd. (a).) Plaintiff states what allegations are proposed
to be added and/or deleted and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Id.) The amendment will add a new cause for
violation of laws barring rent increase which Plaintiff’s counsel discovered
upon receipt of Defendant’s discovery responses in July of 2023, and confirmed
at Defendant’s deposition on March 6, 2024. (Hong decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff’s
counsel did not move to amend the pleading earlier until additional counsel
became a handling attorney in February 2025. (Hong decl., ¶ 10.)
B.
The
existence of prejudice or lack thereof.
Defendant has not shown that substantial
prejudice will result if Plaintiff adds the new claim. Defendant relies in part
on Magpali
v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996)
48 Cal.App.4th 471.
However, in that case, the new cause of action "would have changed the
tenor and complexity of the complaint from its original focus.” (Magpali at 487.) Witnesses had not yet been identified, a jury was impaneled, and a
trial continuance was necessary to permit opposing party to depose new
witnesses. The case is factually distinguishable. (Id. at
488.)
Here, the additional cause of action does
not “change the tenor” of the case as it arises from Defendant’s alleged
misconduct with respect to Plaintiff’s tenancy and adds one additional type of violation.
Municipal Code § 151.10 of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance makes it unlawful
to demand rent in excess of the maximum rent or maximum adjusted rent in
violation of the Code. (LAMC 151.10.)
Defendant does not identify any additional
discovery he requires and will be precluded from obtaining if the amendment
were allowed. The claim is based on Defendant’s issuance of a January 2020
notice for rent increase as admitted in Defendant’s responses to discovery and
to which he testified at his deposition. (Hong decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)
If there is no
prejudice to the opposing party, only slight evidence is needed. Doubts are
resolved in favor of the party seeking relief in furtherance of the policy that
the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits. (Mink v.
Superior Court, (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1343, [“We will
more carefully scrutinize an order denying relief than one which permits a
trial on the merits.”].)
C.
Statute
of limitations.
Defendant has not established that this
claim is clearly barred. A claim based on a liability created by statute is
three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338). The proposed amendment alleges that while
notice of the increase was issued January 6, 2020, Defendant “continuously
demanded, collected, and retained unlawfully increased rent since February 1,
2020.” (Prop. (FAC ¶ 74.) Defendant cites Foxborough
v. Van Atta (1994) 26
Cal.App.4th 217 which arose
from alleged attorney malpractice. (Id.) That case considered a single
act of alleged malpractice and held that where the malpractice results in a
loss of a right, remedy, or interest, there has been actual injury which is not
tolled by subsequent events. (Id. at 227.)
The “continuing violations” doctrine
permits a plaintiff to recover for unlawful practices occurring outside the
statute of limitations period if that conduct was "(1) similar or related
to the conduct that occurred within the limitations period; (2) the conduct was
reasonably frequent; and (3) the conduct had not yet become permanent. " (Jumaane
v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 241
Cal.App.4th 1390, 1402.)
The “continuous accrual” doctrine applies under
circumstances where there are recurring invasions of the same right, each of
which can trigger their own statute of limitations. (Aryeh
v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.
(2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1198.)
The principle seeks to correct inequities that would result where "parties
engaged in long-standing misfeasance would thereby obtain immunity in
perpetuity from suit even for recent and ongoing misfeasance. In addition,
where misfeasance is ongoing, a defendant's claim to repose, the principal
justification underlying the limitations defense, is vitiated." (Gilkyson
v. Disney Enterprises, Inc. (2016)
244 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1342.)
The doctrine applies where an obligation
arises on a recurring basis, such as a case involving periodic payments. (State
of California ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 418.) The reasoning is that each new breach of
an obligation provides all elements of a claim and can then be treated as an
independently actionable wrong with its own limitations period for recovery.
"(Aryeh
v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.
(2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1199.) If the harm arose out of a single
transaction, however, the doctrine does not apply. (Id.)
Here, the amended pleading does not allege
a wrong arising from a single transaction. Rather, Defendant allegedly
continued to demand increased rent in violation of the Municipal Code. Given
these theories, Defendant has not shown that the new cause of action is
affirmatively barred. (Citizens
for a Responsible Caltrans Decision v. Department of Transportation (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1103, 1117; Marshall
v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1398, [In the context of a demurrer to the pleading, the court can only
sustain if the limitations defect “clearly and affirmatively appear[s] on the
face of the complaint."].)
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion
is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed amended pleading at the
conclusion of today’s hearing.