Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV28618, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28618    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiffs Avis Hill, Aaron Hill, Arkivia Birch, Bessie O’Neal, Tiffanie Seniguar, Crystal Simms, Antwon Simms, Katherine Veals, Monet Rolland Wallace, and Natasha Williams’ (together, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted thirty days leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action brought pursuant to the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”). The Complaint alleges as follows.

Defendant Solari Enterprises, Inc. (“Solari”) owns and operates the Courson Arts Colony Apartments (the “Subject Property”) located at 931 and 939 E. Avenue Q12, Palmdale, California. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs applied to be and are tenants and residents at the Subject property. (Ibid.)

Solari requested and procured investigative consumer reports on Plaintiffs without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorizations contrary to the ICRAA. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting three causes of action:

1.    Violations of the ICRAA;

2.    Unfair Business Practices; and

3.    Declaratory Relief.

On September 8, 2020, Solari filed an Answer.

On January 4, 2021, the Court deemed this case related with the following cases: 20STCV27865, 20STCV28618, 20STCV33566, 20STCV35759, 20STCV36998, 20STCV37008, 20STCV37073, 20STCV37080, 20STCV37084, 20STCV39159, and 20STCV45923.

On May 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

On August 25, 2022, Solari filed an Opposition.

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

I.               REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).) 

Evidence Code Section 452 provides that judicial notice may be taken for facts and propositions that are “not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h).) Further, “a court may take judicial notice of [recorded documents and] the fact of a document's recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties to the transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the document's legally operative language, assuming there is no genuine dispute regarding the document's authenticity. From this, the court may deduce and rely upon the legal effect of the recorded document, when that effect is clear from its face.” (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 745-755.) 

Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning. (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113-14 (citations and internal quotations omitted).) In addition, judges “consider matters shown in exhibits attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference.”  (Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 665.)  However, “[w]hen judicial notice is taken of a document . . . the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 569 (quoting StorMedia Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457 n. 9).)

The party requesting judicial notice must (a) give each adverse party sufficient notice of the request to enable the adverse party to prepare to meet the request and (b) provide the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. (Cal. Evid. Code § 453.)

Here, Solari requests judicial notice of the following:

1.    Notice of Court Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication in the case entitled Sheila Gregory, et al. v. Solari Enterprises, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case no. 20STCV27865. (Ex. A.)

2.    Minute Order dated April 15, 2022, in the case entitled Sheila Gregory, et al. v. Solari Enterprises, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case no. 20STCV27865. (Ex. B.)

Both of Solari’s Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED.

II.             MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

When a party moves to amend a pleading, “courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. [Citations.]” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) In ruling on this type of motion, prejudice to another party is the main concern. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) The type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. (Ibid.) Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) 

Here, Plaintiffs seek to add a cause of action for Invasion of Privacy in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs explain that Plaintiffs’ Counsel drafted the original Complaint based on his recollection of telephone calls with the Plaintiffs. (Murphy Decl. ¶ 2.) As Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s recollection was flawed, he did not understand the gravity of the invasions of privacy Plaintiffs were alleging against Solari. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Complaint did not contain an invasion of privacy cause of action. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ Counsel indicates that this was an inadvertent mistake. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs argue that as the new cause of action relates to the same set of facts already pled, and as Defendants will not be misled or prejudiced by the Amendment, leave should be granted.

In Opposition, Solari argues that Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend is merely a ploy after discovering, in a related case, that Plaintiffs’ statutory damages under ICRAA will be capped at $10,000. (RFJN Ex. A.) Additionally, Solari argues that the amendment would prejudice Solari, as the action has proceeded for two years, and adding a new cause of action based on a new legal theory would require Solari to amend their discovery process and trial preparation.

However, as noted above, “the type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) 

The fact that Plaintiffs seek to introduce a new legal theory in pursuit of higher damages is neither surprising, nor prejudicial to Solari’s case. And, while the Court agrees that the instant Motion should have been brought earlier, there is currently no trial date set in the instant action, so Solari will not be greatly prejudiced in preparing for the new cause of action, and no continuance will be necessary.

As Plaintiffs seek to add a cause of action related to the facts contained in the Complaint, as the cause of action is not time-barred, and as no trial date has been set, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

DATED:  September 8, 2022

___________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court