Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00595, Date: 2022-12-06 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: 22PSCV00595    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: O

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Ta-Chung Han and Linlin Zhang’s unopposed Motionfor Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) is GRANTED. The proposed FACC is deemed filed and served as of the date of the hearing.

Background    

Plaintiff Shuai Wang (“Wang”) alleges as follows:

In October 2018, Wang entered into a verbal contract with Linlin Zhang (“Zhang”) and Ta-Chung Han (“Han”) to lease Zhang/Han’s backyard addition located at 3701 S. Ferntower Ave., West Covina, CA 91792 (“subject property”). The parties agreed rent would be $1,500.00 month, paid in cash. Wang advised Zhang/Han of certain habitability issues, which Zhang/Han failed to remedy. Zhang told Wang’s wife in mid-December 2021 that rent would be increased to $2,000.00/month beginning January 2022. Zhang got into an argument with Wang on Christmas Eve 2021 regarding the rent increase, which resulted in the police being called. Wang vacated the subject premises in January 2022. 

On June 17, 2022, Wang filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Han, Zhang and Does 1-10 for: 

1.               Negligent Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

2.               Intentional Breach of Implied Warranty

3.               Nuisance

4.               Negligence

5.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

6.               Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty

7.               Intentional Violation of Statutory Duty 

On July 15, 2022, Han and Zhang filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Wang and Roes 1-10 for: 

1.               Breach of Contract

2.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

A Case Management Conference is set for December 6, 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.) 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

Han and Zhang move the court for leave to file their proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).

The proposed FACC adds five causes of action, for Negligence, Civil Assault, Private Nuisance, Trespass to Chattel and Voluntary (Affirmative) Waste, as well as allegations which Han and Zhang represent “stem from Cross-Defendant’s actions and discovery responses.” (Motion, 4:17-19.)

The motion reflects adequate compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff has attached a copy of a redline version of the FACC, showing the proposed amendments. (Liu Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Han’s and Zhang’s counsel Long Z. Liu (“Liu”) explains that after several attempts he was able to obtain the Police Event Information Report from the West Covina Police Department reflecting Wang’s alleged destruction of Han and Zhang’s property on January 29, 2022. (Id., ¶ 16.) The court further notes that the motion is unopposed.

The motion is granted. The proposed FACC is deemed filed and served as of the date of the hearing.