Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 22STCP02369 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP02369, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Petitioners, the City of Ranchos Palos Verdes and the City of Lakewood, move for leave to file a first amended petition. Respondents Rob Bonta, in his Official Capacity as California Attorney General and State of California, oppose the motion.

Petitioners are general law cities. The petition alleges Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) violates the California Constitution as applied to general law cities and seeks to enjoin its enforcement. The petition also alleges SB 9 is invalid based on other state laws. The petition alleges two related causes of action: (1) mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (Pet., ¶¶ 46-69); and

Petitioners request leave to amend their petition to add two additional cities as petitioners—the City of Paramount and the City of Simi Valley—and factual allegations related to those cities. The motion does not seek to add any new causes of action or seek any additional relief.

“[G]enerally courts will liberally allow amendments at any stage of the proceeding.” (Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Respondents argue granting relief here will prejudice Respondents. They also contend Petitioners are barred by the doctrine of laches from bringing this motion.[1] Of course, as a practical matter, nothing precludes either the City of Paramount or the City of Simi Valley from initiating their own proceeding based on SB 9.

Respondents do, however, raise the issue of timing as a concern about amendment. That is, allowing amendment may result in some minimal delay to resolution of the proceeding. (Opposition 2:24-3:7.) Such delay, however, does not demonstrate actual bias.

Respondents also oppose Petitioners’ motion on the grounds the amendments will fail for those reasons specified in their motion for judgment on the pleadings. That motion argues in part that SB 9 constitutionally preempts any conflicting general law city ordinance. Respondents argue—since the proposed amendments to the Petition would not alter that result—the addition of any general law city as a petitioner would be futile.

Generally, a motion for leave to amend is not the appropriate means for determining the sufficiency of the pleadings. (See e.g., California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-81 [disapproved on other grounds].) Respondents’ motion challenging the pleadings is set for hearing on June 14, 2023. The motion could be dispositive.

Trial is not calendared in this matter until November 29, 2023. Petitioners’ opening brief will not be filed until the end of September 2023.

The court finds allowing amendment is appropriate here. If Respondents wish to amend their motion to include the City of Paramount and the City of Simi Valley or set a demurrer to be heard when the motion for judgment on the pleadings is heard, the court will accommodate Respondents with a continued hearing date on their motion. The continued hearing date would not require the court to continue the trial on the petition.

[1] “ ‘The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.’ ” (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 68.)