Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV00100, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00100, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00100 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Tai Ku’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damage

Respondent: Defendants Gonde He and Manyl Shen

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Tai Ku’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damage is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel separately with the court forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute. In February 2022, Plaintiff Tai Ku and Ku’s family were tenants at a property in Rowland Heights. Ku alleges Defendants Gonde He and Manyl Shen attempted a self-help eviction of Ku and Ku’s family by shutting off Ku’s utilities, locking Ku out of the Rowland Heights property, and moving Ku’s personal property to the Rowland Heights property’s backyard where it was exposed to the elements.

On January 12, 2023, Ku filed a complaint against He and Shen, alleging (1) forcible entry and detainer, (2) assault, (3) false imprisonment, (4) conversion, (5) trespass, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On July 25, 2023, He and Shen filed a cross-complaint against Ku and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of oral contract, (2) trespass, (3) private nuisance, (4) invasion of privacy, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).

On December 14, 2023, Ku filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for January 18, 2024, with a case management conference on February 28.

ANALYSIS

Ku seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that adds Shugui Gu as a second plaintiff. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Ku’s motion.

Legal Standard

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) “A motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate 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 [s]tate 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).) The declaration must also specify the amendment’s effect, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts supporting the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

If the party seeking the amendment has needlessly delayed, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Discussion

In this case, Ku’s counsel provides that the effect of the FAC is to add Gu as a plaintiff to the present action. (Lin Decl., ¶ 12.) But the declaration of Ku’s counsel did not state why this amendment is necessary and proper. The declaration of Ku’s counsel also failed to state when the facts supporting the amendment were discovered. In fact, Ku’s original verified Complaint suggests they were known since the beginning of this action as the Complaint references Gu by name on at least three occasions. (Complaint, ¶ 14, 21, 37.) The only reason given for this almost one-year delay is that Gu was initially afraid of retaliation and only agreed to participate as a plaintiff in July 2023. (Lin Decl., ¶ 7-8; Motion, p. 1:21-23.)

In opposition, He and Shen argue Ku’s amendment was unreasonably delayed and should be denied as untimely. Generally, while courts may permit amendment even at the eve of trial, unwarranted delay itself is a valid ground for denying leave to amend. (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [holding denial of leave to amend proper where moving party “failed to offer any explanation for his delay in seeking leave to amend”]; see Permalab-Metalab Equipment Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 465, 472 [“[C]ourts are much more critical of proposed amendments . . . when offered after long unexplained delay . . . .”].)

But here, Ku has provided an explanation for the delay by stating Gu initially did not want to participate and had ongoing health issues that needed to be resolved first. The court finds this to be a reasonable excuse and does not find the delay was unexplained or unwarranted. And to the extent He and Shen claim Ku could prejudice them by continuing to add new plaintiffs, this is a meritless contention as Ku would have to obtain additional leave from the court to make such amendments. He and Shen also claim they will suffer prejudice in the form of delay of trial. The court finds this contention without merit as trial has not yet been, set and therefore has not been delayed.

Accordingly, the court finds good cause to allow Ku’s amendment as the delay was not unwarranted and any prejudice to He and Shen is minimal or nonexistent. Accordingly, Ku’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Ku’s motion for leave to file a FAC is GRANTED. Ku is ordered to file the proposed FAC attached to the declaration of Ku’s counsel separately with the court forthwith.