Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 19TRCV00989, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19TRCV00989, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV00989 Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: March 28, 2024

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 19TRCV00989

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: DML Enterprises, LLC v. Augustin Moreno, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, DML Enterprises, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Pedersen Family Trust Dated March 9, 2018

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: January 27, 2025

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

¿¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED without prejudice to being re-filed with a proposed amended complaint that complies with the Rule of Court requirements. It must also be labeled a “First Amended Complaint” ¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

This action arises out of a property line dispute between Plaintiff DML Enterprises, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Augustin Moreno, Robert Pedersen, and DOES 1 through 100 (collectively, “Defendant”). Plaintiff now seeks to file an “amendment to Complaint.”

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

The original complaint in this matter was filed on November 5, 2019, with seven causes of action alleged and 45 numbered paragraphs. On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order for Leave to File an Amendment. On March 4, 2024, this motion was continued. On March 21, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Pedersen Family Trust Dated March 9, 2018 (“Pederson”) filed a Declaration in Opposition. An Amendment to Complaint was filed on September 21, 2022 adding a Doe defendant, but which does not appear to have been signed by the judge then presiding over the case. The current proposed “Amendment to Complaint” alleges 8 causes of action spanning over 127 numbered paragraphs.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff moves for leave to file an “Amendment to Complaint.” The moving papers assert that the proposed amendment seeks declaratory relief regarding the related laws of the City of Palos Verdes. Plaintiff asserts the amendment is necessary for Plaintiff and/or this Court to be able to address various intervening events related to the subject property, and because the City has not taken any action since the City issued a fourth notice related to the unpermitted construction on the subject house about four years ago. Although the Court is familiar with the liberal policy for granting leave to amend, the Court notes that the motion is devoid of what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. Defendant Pedersen notes that Plaintiff has known of the existence and potential involvement of the defendant he proposes to add by way of the instant motion, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, since the inception of this case. In fact, Pedersen contends that at the CMC held on August 23, 2023, Plaintiff advised the Court he intended to add the City as a defendant, and the Minute Order reflects the Court’s order for Plaintiff to file the motion to add the Defendant so that the orderly process and procedure be followed. A plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint once without leave of court to add new parties or allegations but not after an answer has been filed. The Court’s thinking at the time is that with the lawsuit having been initially filed in 2019, an amendment to add a new defendant might well be barred by the statute of limitations, might be alleged to result in prejudice or expand the issues involved in the action, might be challenged for other reasons embraced by the Legislature’s grant of discretionary authority to permit an amendment under Code of Civil Procedure §473(a)(1).

Leave of court is required to amend any pleading except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure§ 472, 474, 473(a), and 576. The flexibility in permitting amendments usually prevails, so “leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted as long as there is no timeliness problem under a statute of limitations or prejudice to the opposing party.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) It has repeatedly been said that “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial. The cases indicate that the denial may rest upon the element of lack of diligence in offering the amendment after knowledge of the facts, or the effect of the delay on the adverse party.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939–940; see Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 (plaintiff ailed to offer any explanation for his delay in seeking leave to amend; P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 (plaintiff did not seek leave to amend until after the trial readiness conference, the proposed amendment would require additional discovery and result in a demurrer or other pretrial motion, and Plaintiff offered no explanation for the delay; Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1381 (the amendment of the complaint in the middle of trial prejudiced the defendant in many ways, leading the Second District to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial on the belatedly added cause of action.)

Here, the proposed amendment is not in proper form. Plaintiff has not merely amended the 2019 Complaint in 2024 to add a new party; instead, it has added at least one cause of action and has enlarged its allegations by 80 numbered paragraphs. Given the delay in making the amendment, the time for an existing or added defendant to investigate, conduct discovery and prepare to respond to all these new allegations has been dramatically compressed given the trial looming 10 months away. Further, one can anticipate that the proposed new defendant will demur or make a motion to dismiss if it is added and served with a First Amended Complaint, a consequence that will further compress time. The Opposition argues that Plaintiff was aware of the City’s involvement since the outset of this litigation, suggesting that it is more likely that the City would file a pleading motion if leave to amend is granted and the City were served, further compressing time.

Further, the motion fails to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324 in many respects: the copy of the proposed amendment is not a numbered amendment, and there are no specifications by page number and line to the allegations that would be deleted or added. Counsel’s declaration in support of the motion does specify the effects of the proposed amendment in some detail, but the Court cannot overlook the length of time it took Plaintiff to file this amendment without explanation nor the lack of compliance with the Rules of Court.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff remedying the shortcomings identified, labeling the document a “First Amended Complaint,” and complying with Rule 3.1324.

Pedersen is ordered to give notice.