Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV01755, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01755    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: K

Plaintiffs Joy Yin’s and Ho Seong Lee’s Amended Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED without prejudice.

Background[1]  

Plaintiffs Joy Yin and Seong Lee (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Plaintiffs jointly own the residential property located at 2226 Calle Lista, San Dimas, CA 91773 (“subject property”). On May 24, 2021, Plaintiffs, as landlords, entered into a one-year residential lease agreement (“Lease”) pertaining to the subject property beginning June 1, 2021 with Defendants Nicholas Simmons (“Nicholas”) and Cathy Simmons (“Cathy”), as tenants. Per the Lease, Prager Metis CPAs (“Prager”), including Gentrix Gorges (“Gorges”), was to serve as the property manager. After the Lease term ended, Nicholas and Cathy began a month-to-month tenancy at the subject property. On August 17, 2022, August 31, 2022, September 1, 2022 and September 10, 2022, Plaintiffs conducted walkthroughs of the subject property and became aware of extensive damage to same. On September 11, 2022, Nicholas and Cathy moved out of the subject property. On February 6, 2023, Nicholas returned to the subject property and vandalized it.

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Nicholas, Cathy, Genitrix and Prager for:

1.                  Injury to Real Property

2.                  Breach of Contract

3.                  Fraud

On April 25, 2023, the court sustained Genitrix’s and Prager’s demurrer with 30 days’ leave given to Plaintiffs to amend.

A Case Management Conference is set for May 25, 2023.

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.4^th 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.4^th 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

Plaintiffs move the court for leave to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

Plaintiffs represent that the proposed SAC adds a cause of action for Trespass and “update[es] some of the facts.”

It appears to the court that notice is deficient. (See footnote #1).

At any rate, Plaintiffs’ motion reflects non-compliance with CRC Rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3). Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration reflects non-compliance with subdivision (b).

The court denies Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.