Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV03806, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03806    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 14, 2024                      TRIAL DATE: January 14, 2025

CASE:                         Earl J. Washington et al. v. Wellington Yang, et al. 

CASE NO.:                 22STCV03806           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Earl J. Washington and Lola Mitsuk

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Wellington Yang, Avant Apartments LLC, Avant Dwellings, LLC, Avant Development II, LLC, and Shadi Kashani (Not opposing.)

CASE HISTORY:

·         01/31/22: Complaint filed.

·         04/19/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         08/30/23: Second Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a landlord-tenant dispute. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment against them. Plaintiffs assert claims for harassment, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.           

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve a clean stand-alone copy of the Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.

            Discovery cutoffs shall be calculated based on the current trial date of January 14, 2025 for (1) allegations which were added in the Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to the Court’s August 30, 2023 and March 1, 2024 Minute Orders, and (2) for new allegations added in the Third Amended Complaint. All other discovery matters shall remain closed.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

Legal Standard

The Court may, “at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, . . . allow the amendment of any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) A motion to amend a pleading before trial must meet the following requirements:

(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.

(CRC 3.1324.)

Contents of Motion

Although Plaintiffs did not directly attach a copy of the proposed Third Amended Complaint to the motion itself, Plaintiffs did include a copy with the Declaration of Earl Washington in support of this motion, in substantial compliance with Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1). (Declaration of Earl J. Washington ISO Mot. Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs’ motion also does not state which allegations are proposed to be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number, but Plaintiffs have also provided a redlined copy of the proposed Second Amended Complaint which provides that information as required by subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

The Declaration of Earl J. Washington in support of the motion does not clearly state the effect of the proposed amendments in this pleading relative to the Second Amended Complaint, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1). But the redlined copy of the proposed amendments shows on its face that the effect of these amendments is to add further factual allegations concerning Defendant Kashani’s failure to collect rent from Plaintiffs and subsequent false reporting that Plaintiffs were delinquent in paying rent. (See Washington Decl. Exh. 2.) The Proposed Second Amended Complaint also adds a cause of action for defamation, which is not mentioned in the Notice of Motion but is discussed extensively with the other allegations in the body of the moving papers. The Declaration also does not state why the amendments are necessary and proper as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(2), but the proposed amendments, on their face, supplement factual assertions of a continuous course of conduct with new allegations of facts that were discovered after the Second Amended Complaint was filed. The Declaration does expressly state that these facts were discovered by Plaintiffs on August 25, 2023, and that further discovery was required before the relevant allegations could be added to the pleadings, which addresses subdivision (b)(3) on its face and explains why this motion was not made earlier, as required by subdivision (b)(4). (Washington Decl. ¶ 5.) Thus, the supporting Declaration, taken with the allegations in the proposed Third Amended Complaint and the body of the moving papers, demonstrates substantial compliance with Rule 3.1324(b).

Defendants’ Response

            Defendants’ responsive brief does not oppose the filing of a third amended complaint. Instead, Defendants request only that the Court limit discovery to the new allegations, as the Court ordered with respect to the Second Amended Complaint. (See August 30, 2023 Minute Order.) Defendants also request that discovery deadlines for those matters be calculated based upon the current trial date of January 14, 2025, with all other discovery to remain closed. Plaintiffs do not object to this request in their reply papers.

            As there is no dispute between the parties concerning the filing of a Third Amended Complaint, and Defendants’ proposed limitations appear reasonable and narrowly tailored, the Court will permit amendment subject to the limitations requested.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

            Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve a clean standalone copy of the Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.

            Discovery cutoffs shall be calculated based on the current trial date of January 14, 2025 for (1) allegations which were added via the Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to the Court’s August 30, 2023 and March 1, 2024 Minute Orders, and (2) for new allegations added in the Third Amended Complaint. All other discovery matters shall remain closed.

            Moving parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 14, 2024                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.