Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03536, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03536, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03536 Hearing Date: November 4, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Ao Bai’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ao Bai’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing set in Department G (Pomona). A supplemental briefing schedule will be set at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability and wrongful death action. In April 2023, Lin Bai resided at a property in La Puente allegedly owned by Defendants Thanh Hon Giang, Khanh My Giang, and the Hon Giang Family Trust (the Giang Trust). On April 8, 2023, Lin Bai died in a fire that broke out at the La Puente property due to allegedly faulty electrical wiring. The La Puente property also allegedly lacked functioning smoke alarms, fire suppression systems, and fire extinguishers.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Ao Bai, individually and as successor-in-interest to Lin Bai, filed a complaint against the Giangs, the Giang Trust, and Does 1-50, alleging (1) premises liability, (2) general negligence, and (3) wrongful death.

On December 1, 2023, Ao Bai amended the Complaint to replace Doe 1 with Defendant Ronn Giang. On March 20, 2024, Ao Bai amended the Complaint to replace Doe 2 with Defendant Hon Giang and Doe 3 with Defendant City of La Puente (the City).

On April 2, 2024, Ao Bai dismissed the City from the present action. On April 12, 2024, Ao Bai dismissed Khanh My Giang from the present action. On April 15, 2024, Ao Bai dismissed Thanh Hon Giang from the present action.

On July 29, 2024, Ao Bai amended the Complaint to replace Doe 4, erroneously named “Doe 3,” with Defendant Richard Bash and Doe 5, erroneously named “Doe 4,” with Defendant Masters Realty Services Inc. (Masters Realty), doing business as Century 21 Masters.

On August 12, 2024, Ao Bai dismissed Bash and Masters Realty from the present action.

On September 23, 2024, Ao Bai amended the Complaint to replace Doe 6, erroneously named “Doe 5,” with Defendant Carlos Arturo Santibanez. On October 1, 2024, Ao Bai amended the Complaint to replace Doe 7, erroneously named “Doe 6,” with the City.

On October 9, 2024, Ao Bai filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for November 4, 2024, along with a case management conference/status conference re: ADR/status of Defendant Hon Giang.

ANALYSIS

Ao Bai seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that adds a cause of action for breach of mandatory duty against the City. For the following reasons, the court CONTINUES Ao Bai’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, Ao Bao’s counsel failed to submit a proper declaration in support of the present motion as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b). Although Ao Bao’s counsel did submit a declaration, it lacks the language required in Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.

And even if counsel’s declaration was in proper form, it also fails to adequately address the factors required in Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court. While it generally states Ao Bai “wishes to file the FAC so that she may properly allege the factual basis which underlie her Claims against the CITY,” it fails to specifically state (1) the effect of the amendment and (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper. And while it claims the connection between the creation of a sink-room and the City’s permit became clear following investigation and expert analysis in November 2023, it fails to state what became clear, when it became clear, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Accordingly, the court CONTINUES the hearing on Ao Bai’s motion in order for counsel to file a code-compliant declaration that adequately addresses the factors required in Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Ao Bai’s motion for leave to file a FAC is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing set in Department G (Pomona). A supplemental briefing schedule will be set at the hearing.