Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV04436, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04436    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-24-25 c/f 11-20-24

Case No.: 24STCV04436

Trial Date: 5-27-25

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, RHB Investment Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Anton Haliburton

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff RHB Investment Group, Inc. alleges entry into a written “Residential Purchase Agreement” with Defendant Anton Haliburton for 11934 Van Ness Ave., Hawthorne, on January 17, 2204. The parties agreed to a $400,000 purchase price. Plaintiff alleges Defendant refuses to comply with the terms of the agreement.

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint for 1. Breach of Contract 2. Promissory Estoppel 3. Quiet Title 4. Specific Performance, and 5. Declaratory Relief. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of pendency of action/lis pendens. On April 2, 2024, Defendant, in pro per, filed an unverified answer to the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff RHB Investment Group, Inc. moves for leave to file a first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, and to add Nicholas Magee Aka Nicholas V. Magee-Baker, an Individual, in place of Doe 1. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The court reviews the standard. A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

“(a)      Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(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.

(b)        Supporting declaration

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…” (emphasis added).

Plaintiff presents a copy of the proposed pleading. GM raises no objection to format of the motion.

Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) The court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

The court finds no legal bar to proceeding on the already existing breach of contract claim and dismissing the other four causes of action.

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (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 such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) The motion lacks any declaration regarding the timing of the requested amendment, though the proposed amended pleading indicates Magee, an apparent occupant of the premises, also agreed to vacate the premises upon the close of escrow.

The court finds no prejudice from the dismissal of 80% of the complaint, and addition of Magee.  The court therefore grants the motion for leave to amend. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486-488; Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746.)

The facts remain the same. The court may continue the trial date, if determined necessary at the time of the hearing, in order to allow Magee time to respond. The court orders the separate filing of the amended complaint within 10 days of this order. Defendants to file a responsive pleading within all statutory deadlines.

Plaintiff to provide notice.