Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 22STCV24600, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Lameshia Pittman resided at a property in Inglewood owned, managed, and/or operated by Defendant IH6 Property West, LP. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to maintain the property in a habitable condition, which included insect infestation, cracked walls, and uneven flooring. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of the implied covenant, (3) private nuisance, (4) negligence, and (5) breach of contract.

A Standalone First Amended Complaint must be filed and served to all current parties within 10 days consistent with this Ruling. Any new parties must be served as required by law.

If a plaintiff wishes to amend a complaint after the answer has been filed or after the demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the complaint “of course,” permission of the court must be obtained before the amendment will be allowed. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1); see CCP § 576.) Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].)

Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; see also Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490). An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

As a preliminary issue, Defendant objects to the motion for having failed to give the requisite notice. Under CCP § 1005(b), “[u]nless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” The period is increased “two calendar days” for electronic service. (Id.) “If the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday…” (CCP § 12a(a).) Sundays are considered holidays. (CCP § 10.)

Here, the hearing on the motion is set for December 2, 2024. Sixteen “court days” before this date is Tuesday, November 5, 2024.
[FN 1] Adding another “two calendar days”—not court days—takes it to Sunday, November 3. Because this date is a Sunday, the date is extended to Monday, November 4. Plaintiff filed and served the motion on that date, and therefore, service was timely.

To the extent service might be insufficient, the court exercises its discretion to permit the hearing on a shortened notice period. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(b) [“The court, on its own motion…may prescribe shorter times for the filing and service of papers than the times specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005”].)

Plaintiff Pittman moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action for violation of the Inglewood Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance and to add Lessen Direct, LLC, as a doe Defendant. Plaintiff contends these amendments are necessary after the deposition of Defendant’s Director of Maintenance, which revealed that Lessen Direct played a “significant role in handling tenant habitability complaints and repairs.” (Mtn. 5: 8-9.) Plaintiff also contends it discovered that Defendant and Lessen Direct had “prior knowledge of specific habitability issues, such as termite infestation, broken wood, and deteriorating carpet, yet failed to take proper remedial action.” (Mtn. 6: 13-15.)

Defendant opposes leave to amend. It contends that Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this case and that the addition of the new cause of action would require “extensive further investigation and discovery procedures.” (Opp. 3: 25.) Defendant suggest it would suffer prejudice if the amendment is permitted this late in the litigation.

Here, Defendant cannot reasonably claim it will be unduly prejudiced if Plaintiff is given leave to amend at this stage. Trial is set for November 25, 2025—nearly a year away—giving the parties ample time to conduct further discovery. Therefore, the court will permit the amendment. This conclusion is consistent with the “policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits.” (Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Ct. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1163.) The court takes no position on the merits of the new claims, as the “better course of action” is to permit the amendment “and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 760.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. A standalone First Amended Complaint must be filed and served to all current parties within 10 days consistent with this Ruling. Any new parties must be served as required by law.