Judge Robert S. Draper, Case 21STCV38912 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV38912, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38912 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

DENNISE MORENO, et al.;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PI PROPERTIES NO. 20, LP, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.: 21STCV38912

Hearing Date: May 9, 2023

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to file and serve the First Amended Complaint within five court days after the date of this order.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Defendants are to file and serve the Cross-Complaint within five court days after the date of this order.

Moving parties are ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for residential uninhabitability. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiffs are tenants of residential property located at 1241 S. Greenwood Avenue, Montebello, CA 90640 (the “Subject Property”). (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendants were the owners and/or managers of the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-10.)

During Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the Subject Property suffered from a number of habitability defects. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints regarding these defects, Defendants have responded inconsistently and ineffectively, and the problems continue causing distress and apprehension. (Compl. ¶ 32.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting five causes of action:

1. Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;

2. Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3. Private Nuisance;

4. Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; and,

5. Negligence

On November 2, 2021, the action was reassigned to the instant Department 78.

On February 8, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer.

On February 14, 2023, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint.

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

On April 7, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to advance and set both motions for May 9, 2023.

No Oppositions have been filed to either motion.

DISCUSSION

I. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs move for leave to amend the Complaint.

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading 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, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (See Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting 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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

Here, Plaintiffs seek to add Great Architech LLC (“GA”) as a named Defendant in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs attest that Defendants sold the Subject Property to GA at or around the time Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. (Anand Decl. ¶ 6.) At the time Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, there were no grounds to name GA as a defendant. (Ibid.) However, in the intervening months, the habitability defects have continued, and GA has failed to remedy the defects despite Plaintiffs’ complaints. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs note that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment, and indeed also seek to file a Cross-Complaint against GA.

The Court finds that good cause exists to add Great Architect LLC as a Defendant to the Complaint. Additionally, the Court finds that the amendment will cause no prejudice to Defendants. Finally, the Court notes that no Opposition has been filed to the instant motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

Defendants move for leave to file a Cross-Complaint.

CCP section 428.10 provides the following:

A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following:

(a) Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes the filing of a cross-complaint against the plaintiff in an action commenced under Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of Part 3.

(b) Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.)

After the trial date has been set, a party seeking to file a cross-complaint must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(b).) Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Id., § 428.50(c).) Indeed, where a cause of action would otherwise be lost, leave to amend is appropriate even if the party was negligent in not moving for leave to amend earlier.

“The legislative mandate is clear. A policy of liberal construction of section 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result.” (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.)

Here, Defendants seek to file a Cross-Complaint for Total Equitable Indemnity and Comparative Indemnity and Contribution against GA.

Defendants contend that they did not file a Cross-Complaint against GA earlier because the facts that give rise to GA’s liability were not discovered until after Defendants filed their Answer. (Kepko Decl. ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that good cause exists to allow Defendants to file a Cross-Complaint, and that such a Cross-Complaint is not filed in bad faith.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

DATED: May 9, 2023

________________________________

Hon. Jill T. Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court