Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 20STCV18986, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). LADWP filed an opposition, and Pacific Bell filed an opposition and joinder.

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).) The Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (Kittredge).)

Plaintiff identifies the amendments and provides a copy of the proposed FAC. Kayvan Setareh seeks to only substitute the Plaintiff from himself to Hudson Studios LLC. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Hudson Studios LLC, is the owner of the subject property and is the proper Plaintiff. (Siciliano Decl. ¶ 4.) The facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered at the deposition of Kayvan Setareh on June 25, 2024. (Siciliano Decl. ¶ 5.)

Defendants argue that Kayvan Setareh “is a sophisticated commercial property developer who understands the significance of having one’s name on the title to a property. When Plaintiff filed his action, he knew he was not the owner of the building.” (LADWP Opposition at p. 3.) Kayvan Setareh’s ownership of other properties and his understanding of the difference between holding title versus actual ownership is not relevant at this stage. (Id. at pp. 3-6.) Similarly, Defendants’ arguments about the statute of limitations and whether the claims relate back are premature because the Court does not ordinarily consider the merits when granting leave to amend. (Kittredge, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1048.) Pacific Bell’s cited authority involves a demurrer, not a motion to amend. (Pacific Bell Opposition at pp. 3-4.)

“Defendants argue plaintiffs should not be permitted to substitute a new plaintiff because their failure to name the new plaintiff in their original complaint was not a mistake. No such rule exists. To the contrary, courts have permitted plaintiffs who have been determined to lack standing, or who have lost standing after the complaint was filed, to substitute as plaintiffs the true real parties in interest. [Citations.] Amendments for this purpose are liberally allowed.” (Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 243.) The proposed amendment changes only the Plaintiff. It does not “state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” (Id.)

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application that indicates that the parties stipulated to various relief in light of amendment, including their intention to return to mediation.

Because there is no showing of prejudice, the motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the FAC within five days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court