Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2022-00042847-CU-OR-CTL 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00042847-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00042847-CU-OR-CTL NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC VS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ('Plaintiff') seeks to amend the complaint to replace itself as plaintiff with MCLP Asset Company, Inc. ('MCLP'), who is the real party in interest at this point, and to add a claim of constructive trust over the sale proceeds of the subject property. Defendant Housing Authority of the City of San Diego ('Defendant') opposes the motion.

'The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect....' (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) ' '[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading [citations], [and] as a matter of policy the ruling of the trial court in such matters will be upheld unless a manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown. [Citations.]' ' (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547.) Nevertheless, it is also true that courts generally should permit amendment 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, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 433; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225.) But this policy applies ' 'only '[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.' ' ' (Atkinson v. Elk Corp., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 761, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 433.) Moreover, ' ' 'even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may-of itself-be a valid reason for denial.' ' ' (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 754 (Huff ); Record v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 486, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547.) (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) '[C]ourts have permitted plaintiffs who have been determined to lack standing, or who have lost standing after the complaint was filed, to substitute as plaintiffs the true real parties in interest.' (Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 243.) Plaintiff assigned the deed of trust to MCLP on March 29, 2023. Plaintiff filed this motion on June 16, 2023, two and a half months later. Defendant asserts Branick indicates that the plaintiff who is requested to replace the original plaintiff must have had standing since the commencement of the lawsuit. The Court disagrees. The court in Branick stated: Finally, defendant argues that plaintiffs who never had standing may not substitute plaintiffs with Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986851 64 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC VS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY 37-2022-00042847-CU-OR-CTL standing. Defendant relies on Summit Office Park v. United States Steel Corp. (5th Cir.1981) 639 F.2d 1278, an antitrust case in which a federal court refused to permit indirect purchasers to substitute direct purchasers as plaintiffs, after the high court held while the action was pending that indirect purchasers had no standing to sue. The court wrote that, 'where a plaintiff never had standing to assert a claim against the defendants, it does not have standing to amend the complaint and control the litigation by substituting new plaintiffs, a new class, and a new cause of action.' (Summit Office Park, at p. 1282.) The cited authority is not on point. Plaintiffs here did have standing to sue at the time they filed their complaint. In any event, as we have already explained, California's courts have not followed the same rule. (See ante, at p. 243, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 71–72, 138 P.3d at pp. 218–219.) (Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 244.) Here, Plaintiff had standing when this case was filed and standing transferred to MCLP on March 29, 2023. There was no need to initiate a new action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 368.5.) Plaintiff promptly filed this motion, such that Defendant cannot be heard to complain about delay. Defendant also argues prejudice, but no discovery has been conducted and Defendant does not demonstrate substituting in MCLP expands the issues to be litigated. The Court finds Defendant has not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to justify denying leave to amend. The motion is granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986851 64