Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 23STCV19686, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Pernell Monger was a tenant at the Madison Hotel in Los Angeles. Plaintiff suffers from a physical disability that limits his ability to walk up and down stairs. The property was owned and operated by Defendant Aids Healthcare Foundation, dba Healthy Housing Foundation. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to maintain habitable conditions at the property and failed to maintain the elevator in working order, among other things. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12955, (2) violation of Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 et seq., (3) violation of Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 et seq., (4) negligence, and (5) private nuisance.

“A ‘supplemental’ pleading is used to allege facts occurring after the original pleading was filed. [Citation.] In contrast, the additional allegations in an ‘amended’ pleading address matters that had occurred before the original pleading was filed.” (Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1032.) Code of Civil Procedure section 464, subdivision (a) provides: “The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.”

As with amended pleadings, a motion to file supplemental pleadings is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and the same policy favoring liberality in amending pleadings applies. (Louie Queriolo Trucking, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 194, 197.)

A motion for leave to amend must state with particularity what allegations are to be amended. Namely, it must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and/or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration specifying: (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(b).) The motion must also be accompanied by the proposed amended pleading, numbered to differentiate it from the prior pleadings or amendments. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).) It is within the court’s discretion to require compliance with Rule 3.1324 before granting leave to amend. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp.¿(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 16, 2023, while still a tenant at the property owned and operated by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to maintain the property in habitable condition and failed to maintain a safe environment for Plaintiff, who suffers from a physical disability that makes it difficult to go up and down stairs. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-18.)

Plaintiff moved out of the subject property on March 29, 2024—after this action was filed. (Harings Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not “advise Plaintiff he was entitled to a pre-move out inspection,” “did not provide Plaintiff with an itemized statement of security deposit disposition,” and “did not return any portion of Plaintiff’s security deposit.” (Mtn. 2: 1-3.) Based on these developments—and rather than filing an action in small claims—Plaintiff “now seeks to add claims for violation of Civil Code §1950.5, for failure to return a residential security deposit.” (Id. 2: 3-4.)

The motion is unopposed. Here, based on new conduct occurring after Plaintiff moved out of the subject unit and after the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff has shown good cause for a supplemental complaint. Though Plaintiff arguably could have sought leave to amend earlier, there is a “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.)

By failing to oppose, Defendant has not demonstrated it will be unduly prejudiced by the filing of the supplemental complaint. The allegations here do not appear complex and will only slightly expand the scope of this case. Trial is scheduled for August 25, 2025, leaving the parties ample time to prepare for the new allegations.

The court makes no conclusion on the merits at this time. Rather, 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.)

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.