MOVING PARTIES: JACLYN, LLC 

RESPONDING PARTY: MIDO KHALIL D/B/A PYRAMIDO RESTAURANT 

Plaintiff Jaclyn, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 

The court considered the moving papers and notice of no opposition filed in connection with this motion.  

BACKGROUND 

This is a commercial unlawful detainer action. On October 25, 2023, plaintiff Jaclyn, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Mido Khalil d/b/a Pyramido Restaurant (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging the sole cause of action for unlawful detainer. On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same Defendant, Doe Defendants, and alleging the same cause of action. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) 

“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.) Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (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 of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) 

Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, 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 of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add language that clearly states the subject lease agreement (the Lease) is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (the Act) and that states the Lease terminated per the normal Lease termination clause as of January 1, 2024. Plaintiff contends that despite the subject property being commercial property, Defendant keeps demurring to Plaintiff’s complaints on the grounds that Plaintiff has not specifically stated the exemption number that exempts the subject property from the requirements of the Act. Plaintiff further contends the proposed amendments in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) are in furtherance of justice and will not prejudice Defendant. Plaintiff also contends Plaintiff’s claims here are not affected by the proposed amendments because the subject property is commercial, not residential, and is therefore in the interests of justice. Additionally, Plaintiff notes that no trial date has been set and the parties are still in the early stages of discovery.