Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00095, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00095    Hearing Date: November 27, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 27, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00095

CASE NAME: Carlo A. Coppola v. Luxe H2O, et al

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Carlo A. Coppola

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, LUXE H20, Incorporated

TRIAL DATE: October 6, 2025

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

Tentative Rulings: (1) Since the motion is now unopposed, GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone third amended complaint on or before December 6, 2024, and Luxe shall have until year-end to file its responsive pleading.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Carlo A. Coppola (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Luxe H2O, incorporated (“Luxe”) and DOES 1 through 100 for the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of express warranty. This matter involves allegations of construction defects and damages to Plaintiff’s residence located 6369 West 84th Street, Los Angeles, California 90045 (“Subject Property”). Defendant, Luxe filed an answer on May 9, 2022. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for: (1) Negligence; (2) Breach of Contract; and (3) Breach of Express Warranty.

Previously, on January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed Motion for Leave to file SAC on the grounds that a in late December 2023, he took the deposition of Luxe’s PMQ regarding certain categories of testimony. Although the person produced was not the person most qualified, Plaintiff asserts that he acquired information concerning the company, including ownership, that was previously unknown to Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff stated that he learned Lori K. Sewell, Gary M. Sewell, Jr., Matthew L. Jenson, and Daniel A. Longmire were all owners of the company in 2017, when work was performed by Luxe at Plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff also learned that the corporate formalities were not clearly followed by any of the owners during the period of Plaintiff’s project. Plaintiff claimed he also become aware that Luxe, whose contractor’s license is currently revoked by the Contractor’s State License Board, does not apparently plan to conduct any future business. Plaintiff asserts he became aware that Luxe never obtained the proper liability insurance for its business operations from 2017 to present, and only

obtained a single general liability policy for only one year of its existence despite having multiple Contractor’s State License Board Complaints levied against it concerning improper work. Further, Plaintiff also become aware that Luxe’s only insurer is reserving rights and likely taking an adverse coverage position. Plaintiff states it learned that Luxe’s owners have a history of mismanaging companies and engaging in conduct that has resulted in numerous license revocations for multiple companies. Based on the above information, Plaintiff previously obtained from the December 2023 deposition, Plaintiff moved on a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which this court granted on February 9, 2024.

Now, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend to File a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) to include additional latent defects and damages he claims have manifested themselves such that Plaintiff must amend the complaint to properly allege the same.

B. Procedural

On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and file Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). On November 14, 2024, Defendant Luxe filed an opposition. On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief. On November 25, Luxe withdrew its opposition, effectively making the motion unopposed.

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

Plaintiff asserts that this motion is brought because in recent weeks, additional latent defects and damages have manifested themselves such that Plaintiff must amend the pleading to properly allege the dame. Plaintiff argues the facts supporting the proposed amendments were

not known to Plaintiff at the time of the filing of the original complaint and are necessary to allow the court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s defects and damages in full. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add additional defects related to electrical work performed by Luxe and prayers for relief as outlined in the proposed TAC.

Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion states that “the additional issues were only recently identified and not known to me at the time of the filing of the previous complaints.” While the declaration does not state how or exactly when the belated discovery of the additional issues were made, because Luxe has withdrawn its opposition the Court will consider the declaration to be adequate compliance with Rule of Court 3.1324.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File his Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED