Judge Sandy N. Leal, Case 2021-01199592 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2021-01199592, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to Amend

Defendant, Edward DeGiacomo’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Answer is GRANTED.

Defendant moves for leave to file a Second Amended Answer.

Procedural Requirements

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; (2) state 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 (3) state 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 Ct., rule 3.1324(a).)

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)

Based on the moving papers and Dreyfuss Declaration in Support of Motion, it is not clear what Defendant seeks to add to the Second Amended Answer. However, the Dreyfuss Declaration in Support of Reply (Dreyfuss Reply Decl.) meets all requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Specifically, the Dreyfuss Reply Declaration includes a Proposed Second Amended Answer, which demonstrates that Defendant seeks to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense as the twelfth affirmative defense.

Additionally, the Dreyfuss Reply Declaration now includes a discussion about the effect of the amendment, why the facts supporting the amendment were not discovered earlier, and why Defendant did not move for leave to amend earlier. (see Dreyfuss Reply, Decl., ¶¶ 3-14.)

Here, court trial in this matter is scheduled for 10-16-23. Because the Dreyfuss Reply Declaration fulfills all requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 and the trial date is rapidly approaching, the Court finds that the Dreyfuss Reply Declaration is sufficient to meet the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

Substantive Requirements

Defendant moves to file a Second Amended Answer to add a twelfth affirmative defense as follows:

“In the course of the lawsuit Plaintiff has taken the position that the HOA did not approve the location of the gate on the property, but she has since further argued that if it did so, that approval would have been improper since it interferes with the easement. As discussed in Pacific Hills HOA v. Prun (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1557, the applicable statute of limitations for a claim based on violation of CC&Rs, or to challenge a decision by the HOA, is five years pursuant to CCP §336. The gate has been in its current location for roughly fifteen years. Likewise, the decision by the HOA rejecting the construction of the tankless water heater on Answering Defendant’s property took place more than five years prior to the filing of the Complaint. As such these claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.”

(Dreyfuss Reply Decl., Exhibit A, ¶ 34.) Defendant contends that the motion should be granted because Defense counsel realized during the course of settlement discussions that the statute of limitations defense was applicable and was not previously included in the First Amended Answer. (Motion, 2:11-16.)

Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

The policy favoring amendment is so strong that denial of leave to amend can rarely be justified: “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (Morgan) (1959) 172 Ca.App.2d 527, 530.)

In reply, Plaintiff contends that leave to amend must be denied for the following reasons: (1) the motion does not comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, (2) Defendant did not set out grounds for relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, (3) the motion’s discussion of settlement negotiations violates evidence Code section 1154, (4) the timing of Defendant’s motion suggests gamesmanship, which causes prejudice to Plaintiff.

As discussed above, Defendant meets the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first argument fails. Plaintiff’s second argument also fails, as Plaintiff does not discuss why Defendant’s motion fails to set forth grounds for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (see Opposition, 4:14-5:17.)

Plaintiff’s third argument also fails. Evidence Code section 1154 states: “[e]vidence that a person has accepted or offered or promised to accept a sum of money or any other thing, act, or service in satisfaction of a claim, as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof, is inadmissible to prove the invalidity of the claim or any part of it.” Defendant’s motion does not violate Evidence Code section 1154 because there are no references to specific events that occurred during settlement negotiations. Rather, the motion simply states in a general fashion that Defendant discovered relevant facts supporting the motion during the course of settlement negotiations.

Finally, Plaintiff’s fourth argument appears to be entirely speculative and conjecture. The argument that Defendant engaged in gamesmanship by filing this motion while not opposing Plaintiff’s Ex Parte to Continue Trial does not actually show how Plaintiff was or will be prejudiced by this timing. Moreover, the Opposition also repeatedly states that Plaintiff will surely be prejudiced but fails to show what prejudice Plaintiff will allegedly suffer. Defendant’s request to add a statute of limitations defense is based on facts that were already pled in the Complaint, such as the facts regarding the Gate between the parties’ properties and the HOA’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s tankless water heater (see Complaint, ¶¶ 26-30.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she will be prejudiced by allowing Defendant to amend.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is to file the proposed Second Amended Answer within 5 days of this date.

Defendant is to give notice.