Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV07543, Date: 2025-01-28 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: 24STCV07543    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 40

  24STCV07543 Tangela Ridgeway, et al. v. 8555 Saturn, LLC et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

I.       BACKGROUND

      The complaint, filed on March 26, 2024, alleges that Plaintiffs entered into a written residential lease agreement with Defendants, who allegedly breached the agreement by failing to keep the premises in a habitable condition. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and negligence.

II.     ARGUMENTS

      Plaintiffs request leave to add claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability, for retaliation in violation of Civ. Code, § Code § 1942.5, and for violation of the Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance. The claims are based on misconduct that occurred after Plaintiffs filed the complaint, and after authorities cited Defendants for the conditions of the premises, and Defendants’ failure to abate within 35 days of the citations.

      Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not shown good cause, or an explanation for the delay, or why Plaintiffs did not include the claims in the original complaint. Trial is already set for July 22, 2025. The claim for retaliation and violation of the anti-harassment ordinance does not apply to any of the proposed new facts. Defendants would have the right to demur but cannot get a date until March of 2025. There would be insufficient time to conduct discovery.

      In reply, Plaintiffs argue that the motion is timely made as the amendments are based on acts occurring after the commencement of the action. Defendants have not shown how amending the complaint would cause prejudice. Discovery can still proceed on new allegations regardless of whether Defendants choose to file a demurrer. Plaintiffs have already produced in discovery all documents in their possession relating to the government authority’s notices, inspections, and written complaints.

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.) 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.)

IV.   DISCUSSION

      Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed amended complaint showing the additions to the pleading. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 subd. (b); Nazgole Hashemi decl., Ex. 1.) The new allegations are based on facts that occurred from March through November of 2024.  (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration avers that the last government inspection occurred on November 19, 2024. Plaintiffs obtained records in discovery to support the new allegations. (Id.) Plaintiffs have attempted to mitigate any prejudice by producing documents relevant to the new allegations. (Hashemi decl., ¶ 9.)

      Defendants have not demonstrated that any prejudice will result in permitting amendment. Defendants’ belief that the claims are not supported by the facts is not a proper basis for demurrer. The court does not consider the validity of the amendments at this stage. The “better course is to allow a plaintiff to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 843.)

      Defendants have not identified what discovery cannot be completed before discovery cutoff.

V.     CONCLUSION

      As there is no evidence of prejudice to Defendants, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve the first amended complaint within 10 days.