Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00403, Date: 2025-01-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV00403 Hearing Date: January 2, 2025 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: January 2, 2025
CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00403
CASE NAME: Norma Wesolowski, et al. v. Amal Zaky, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Amal Zaky, Palo Vista Property Management.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Norma Wesolowski, Brenda Zuniga, and Yessenia Bueno
TRIAL DATE: January 13, 2025
MOTION: (1) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANT
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On May 27, 2022, Plaintiffs, Norma Wesolowski, Brenda Zuniga, and Yessenia Bueno (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Amal Zaky, Palo Vista property Management, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Private Nuisance; (3) Unfair Competition – Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) Negligence; and (5) Failure to Return Security Deposit.
On February 2, 2023, Defendants, Amal Zaky and Palo Vista Property Management filed a Cross-Complaint for Damages against Norma Wesolowski.
On February 8, 2023, Defendants, Amal Zaky and Palo Vista Property Management filed an Answer.
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Private Nuisance; (3) Unfair Competition – Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) Negligence; and (5) Failure to Return Security Deposit.
On March 16, 2023, Cross-Defendant, Norma Wesolowski filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants, Amal Zaky and Palo Property Management.
On July 17, 2023, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ FAC.
However, Defendants now file a Motion for Leave to Amend to file a First Amended Answer. Trial is currently set for January 13, 2025.
B. Procedural
On December 10, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer. On December 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been filed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, 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.”¿
“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ (See Id. at p. 1048.)¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)¿
Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.¿ (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)
B. Discussion
Preliminarily, the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants, Amal Zaky and Palo Vista Property Management’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion was field and served within a few weeks of trial. Although Defense Counsel’s declaration includes a copy of the proposed amended answer, James McCone’s declaration fails to state why the amendment is necessary, and when the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered. However, the facts bearing on whether any of Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred have apparently been provided in discovery responses, and the general policy of liberality of amending pleadings should prevail where no substantial prejudice is shown. If the alleged water intrusion and the alleged mold resultant therefrom were discovered outside of the statutory period of limitations, the interests of justice require that Plaintiff explain the basis for any potential tolling or delayed accrual of the statute of limitations before Plaintiffs should be entitled to recover damages for an allegedly time-barred claim. Further, most motions in UD actions may be filed and served with
5 days’ notice, including motions for summary judgment, and amendment of pleading to conform to proof may be granted at or even during a trial. Thus, the late date of this motion does not preclude its granting.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to add an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations is GRANTED.