Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20PSCV00911, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 20PSCV00911 Hearing Date: September 12, 2022 Dept: O
Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Ammi Yiyun Hsu’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. The
proposed FACC is deemed filed and served as to all parties who have appeared in this case as of the
hearing date.
Background
Golden
Springs, as Lessor, and Ammi Yiyun Hsu (“Hsu”), as Lessee, entered into a
written Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease-Net dated March 1,
2017 for the commercial premises located at 20657 Golden Springs Dr., Unit 108,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (“subject property”).
On December 30, 2020, Golden Springs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Hsu and Does 1-10 for:
1.
Breach of Contract—Lease for Non-Residential
Property—Civil Code § 1951.2
On March 18, 2021, Hsu filed a cross-complaint, asserting
causes of action against Golden Springs, Shumei Fang (“Fang”), Rancie Qiwen
Lin, I Do Nail and Lasher Inc. and Roes 1-10 for:
1.
Promissory Estoppel
2.
Breach of Contract—Release Agreement
3.
Breach of Contract—Lease Agreement
4.
Equitable Indemnity
5.
Breach of Contract
6.
Declaratory Relief
On March 23, 2021, Hsu filed an “Amendment to [Cross-]Complaint,” correcting the name of “Rancie Qiwen Lin” to “Ranice Qiwen Lin” (“Lin”).
On July 7, 2021, Hsu filed another “Amendment to [Cross-]Complaint,” advising that “I Do Nail and Lasher Inc.” had been sued by its fictious name and that its true name was “I Do Nails and Lashes, Inc. dba I Do Nail and Lasher Inc.” (“IDo Nails”).
On July 14, 2022, Lin filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Golden Springs, Hsu and Zoes 1-10 for:
1.
Constructive Eviction
2.
Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
3.
Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
4.
Indemnity on a Comparative Fault Basis
5.
Contribution
6.
Declaratory Relief
The Trial Setting Conference is set for September 12, 2022.
Legal Standard
“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); and see § 576 [“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order”].)
“[T]he trial
court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading.” (Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52
Cal.App.3d 118, 135.) “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are
introduced as long as the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of
facts.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior
Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [quotation marks and citation
omitted].) “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, the preferable
practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the
pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Id. [quotation marks and citation omitted].) With that said, “the
failure of a proposed amendment to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action or defense may support an order denying a motion to amend.” (California
Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280,
disapproved of on other grounds in Kransco
v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390)
Courts must apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial, when no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (emphasis added).) However, “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial. . . denial may rest upon the element of lack of diligence in offering the amendment after knowledge of the facts, or the effect of the delay on the adverse party.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 940.)
Also, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)
Discussion
Hsu moves the court for leave to file her proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).
Hsu represents that she was recently assigned with the right to prosecute claims for Fang and IDo Nails in connection with Plaintiff’s act of wrongful eviction. Hsu seeks to add the seventh through ninth causes of action, for Wrongful Eviction, Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and Aiding and Abetting Wrongful Eviction, respectively, and to add a new cross-defendant, Alicia Yu.
The motion reflects compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a). Hsu’s counsel Christopher Lee’s declaration reflects adequate compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b). The court further notes that the motion is unopposed.
The motion is granted. The proposed FACC is deemed filed and served as to all parties who have appeared in this case as of the hearing date.