Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 22STCV32331, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: 22STCV32331 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 19
After consideration of the briefing filed, Plaintiff JSL Gardena 1, LLC’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff to formally file and serve the First Amended Complaint within five (5) court days.
Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff JSL Gardena 1, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Eric Chung (“Defendant”) alleging a singular cause of action for breach of contract.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”).
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576, Plaintiff moves to amend the Complaint to include a claim for unpaid rent accrued from March 2020 to January 2022 (the “Deferral Period”).
As an initial matter, Defendant does not oppose the instant Motion, effectively consenting to the Court granting it. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”].)
A. Procedural Requirements
Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), 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 Ct., rule 3.1324(a).)
Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), 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).)
The Court finds that Plaintiff complies with California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324.
B. Analysis
“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(a)(1).) “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)
The policy in California is that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.) “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.” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 531.) “Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)
Here, Plaintiff argues leave to amend should be granted “to allow Plaintiff to rebut Defendant’s potential defense that the part of the rent should not be recovered under the original complaint.” (Harold Jung Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also seeks to update the amount of rent due.
The Court finds, in light of Defendant’s failure to oppose, that granting leave would not prejudice Defendant. Trial has not yet been scheduled.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.