RULING

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiffs Racquel Haynes, Marcus Haynes, Asjian Haynes, Ty Haynes and Lailyn Haynes’s unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.

A new Answer by Defendant Hani Mammo is not required. (Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 803-810; see Rutter Ch 6-E, § 6:690 et seq.) However, whether to file a new (presumably identical) answer will be up to Defendant Hani Mammo.

The Court orders counsel for Plaintiffs to formally file the proposed First Amended Complaint within 10 days and serve it on the Defendants named therein, except Rana Mammo, who is in default and no substantive changes are being made. Since Defendants Bushra Mammo, and Mudafar I Mammo have not appeared in the action, the First Amended Complaint must be served on them in a manner prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 et seq.

Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice of this ruling to Defendant Hani Mammo. Notice of this ruling is not required as to Defendants Bushra Mammo, Mudafar I Mammo, and Rana Mammo. (Code Civ. Proc., 1010 [“No bill of exceptions, notice of appeal, or other notice or paper, other than amendments to the pleadings, or an amended pleading, need be served upon any party whose default has been duly entered or who has not appeared in the action or proceeding.”].)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is a habitability action. Plaintiffs Racquel Haynes, Marcus Haynes, Asjian Haynes, Ty Haynes and Lailyn Haynes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Bushra Mammo, Mudafar I. Mammo, Rana Mammo, Hani Mammo, and GV Property Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1. Breach Of Contract;

2. Breach Of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

3. Nuisance;

4. Negligence;

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

6. Retaliatory Eviction Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5;

7. Violation Of Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.4;

8. Violation Of Cal. Civ. Code § 789.3; and

9. Violation Of Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2.

On February 16, 2023, Defendant GV Property Management, Inc. was dismissed.

On May 17, 2023, Defendant Rana Mammo’s default was entered.

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576, Plaintiffs move for an order granting leave to amend the Complaint to remove from the caption the dismissed Defendant GV Property Management, Inc. and to indicate that Plaintiffs Ty Haynes and Lailyn Haynes are bringing suit by and through their respective guardians ad litem.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Defendant Hani Mammo 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 has substantially complied with California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324. Given the nature of the proposed amendments, the Court does not find a declaration pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) necessary.

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, Plaintiffs request leave to amend to remove Defendant GV Property Management, Inc. as a named defendant, who has already been dismissed, and to indicate that Plaintiffs Ty Haynes and Lailyn Haynes are bringing suit by and through their respective guardians ad litem.

Since Plaintiffs are not seeking to make substantive changes, the Motion is GRANTED. (See Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 529-530.)