Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV01056, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV01056, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01056 Hearing Date: February 21, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 21, 2025 TRIAL DATE: January 27, 2026

CASE: Shauna Carter, et al. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV01056

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Shauna Carter, Jeanette Kidd, Daria Hall Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Dennell Jacobs, Susan Espinoza, Victoria Orafa, & Amy Okwandu-Moses.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendnats Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority and Walsh Shea Corridor Constructors

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a nuisance and inverse condemnation action that was filed on January 12, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that their dwellings were seriously damaged by Defendants’ construction of the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor railroad line.

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend the Complaint only to correct the names of existing parties.

Plaintiffs are directed to serve and file a First Amended Complaint in conformity with this ruling within 20 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Legal Standard

The Court may, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1); see also § 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.

(Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1324.) 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.)

Contents of Motion

Plaintiffs did not attach a clean copy of the proposed amended complaint to the motion itself, as required by Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1). Although Plaintiffs have included a proposed amended pleading as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Anthony Egbase in support of the Motion, that exhibit contains highlights to identify alterations to the pleadings. (Declaration of Anthony O. Egbase ISO Mot. Exh. A.) That said, as that Declaration was filed and served alongside the motion itself, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have substantially complied with Rule 3.1324(a)(1) in providing a copy of the amendment, and with subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3) by specifying the revisions to the pleadings. (Id.) Plaintiffs have therefore demonstrated substantial compliance with the requirements for the motion itself under Rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

The supporting Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Anthony Egbase, states that the effect of the proposed amendments is to correct the name of one Plaintiff and one Defendant and name three additional Plaintiffs in the action, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1). (Egbase Decl. ¶¶ 2; 4.) However, the supporting declaration does not explain why the proposed amendments are necessary and proper, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(2), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (subd. (b)(3),) or why the request for amendment was not made earlier (subd. (b)(4).) As Defendants expressly consent to the amendment of the pleadings to correct the names of existing parties, the Court is willing to permit amendment in that respect notwithstanding the deficiency of the supporting declaration. However, on this record, Plaintiffs have not justified the request to name additional parties to the action. The Court will therefore permit amendment only with respect to corrections of the names of existing parties.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend the Complaint only to correct the names of existing parties.

Plaintiffs are directed to serve and file a First Amended Complaint in conformity with this ruling within 20 days of this order.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2025 ___________________________________

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.