Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 22STCV17459 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Bahram Rasizadeh filed this action against Defendant Schuster Real Estate Co., Ltd. On July 6, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Defendant did not file an opposition.

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).) “‘[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486, quoting Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939-940.)

Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed amended complaint. (Naudi Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s original motion does not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added and where the allegations are located. Plaintiff states only that the amendments are “updated only to correct ongoing misconduct, typographical errors (including Schuster Land Corporation which was sued in error as ‘SCHUSTER REAL ESTATE CO., LTD dba SCHUSTER LAND CORPORATION[’]) and add causes of action.” (Motion at p. 1.) Counsel’s original declaration does not attest 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. Instead, counsel states that upon reviewing the Complaint (which was filed eleven months ago), “I determined a certain cause of action had been omitted, which omission would prejudice Plaintiffs if not corrected.” (Naudi Decl. ¶ 2.)

Before the original April 20, 2023 hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling that identified these deficiencies with the motion. At the hearing, counsel offered to supplement the motion with the required information, so the Court continued the hearing.

Counsel’s supplemental declaration does identify each amendment by page, paragraph, and line number. (Naudi Suppl. Decl. ¶ 8.) Counsel declares that he previously was unaware that elder abuse statutes applied in the landlord/tenant context, and he discovered this on March 11, 2023. The additional factual allegations relate to the new elder abuse causes of action, add additional relief available, and correct Defendant’s name. The proposed amendment appears proper and is generally based on the same alleged conduct. Amendment will not enlarge the issues in this case or will prejudice Defendant before the December 11, 2023 trial date.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve and file the amended complaint within five days.

When a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Production, Set One on Defendant. Defendant never served responses, so Plaintiff filed these two motions to compel on December 5, 2022. Defendant did not file any oppositions to the motions. Accordingly, the motions to compel are GRANTED.

Defendant is ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One within 21 days.

The requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART. Because no oppositions were filed, the Court will not award attorney fees for time reviewing oppositions and preparing replies. The Court also will not award fees for time spent in connection with the hearings on the motions because the motions are unopposed and Plaintiff has the option to submit on the tentative ruling.

Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $1,495.00 ($1,375.00 for attorney fees [2.5 hours] and two $60.00 filing fees) within 21 days.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party has subsequently served a substantially compliant response and that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) A monetary sanction against the party whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission is mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Request for Admission, Set Two. Defendant never served responses. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, and Request for Admission, Set Two is deemed admitted.

The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Because no opposition was filed, the Court will not award attorney fees for time reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply. The Court also will not award fees for time spent in connection with the hearing on the motion because the motion is unopposed and Plaintiff has the option to submit on the tentative ruling.

Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $610.00 ($550.00 for attorney fees and $60.00 filing fee) within 21 days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court