Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV35260, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 21STCV35260 Hearing Date: June 10, 2025 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: June
10, 2025
CASE NAME: Rauvel
Reyes Rebollar, et al. v. Juan Manuel Villagrana, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV35260
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
MOVING PARTY: Defendants
Juan Villagrana and Maria Villagrana
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Rauvel Reyes
Rebollar, Karla Leon Garcia, and Carlos Adolfo Reyes Leon
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order granting leave to amend the Answer to add an affirmative defense.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
for Leave to Amend Answer is GRANTED;
2. Defendants
to file their First Amended Answer within 7 days of this ruling.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Rauvel Reyes Rebollar,
Karla Leon Garcia, and Carlos Adolfo Reyes Leon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Defendants Juan Manuel Villagrana, Maria De Los Angeles Villagrana, LAX
Property Management, LLC, and Does 1 through 10. The complaint alleged seven
causes of action: (1) Negligence, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of
Habitability, (3) Intentional Misrepresentation, (4) Violation of California
Civil Code § 1940.2, (5) Violation of California Civil Code § 789.3, (6) Violation
of the Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium, and (7) Violation of Civil Code
§ 1942.4. The Plaintiff alleges that they are tenants of the Subject Property.
The Subject Property has had infestation of cockroaches, has exposed electrical
wiring, holes in the ceiling, and trash accumulation. The Plaintiffs reported
these issues to the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, which found
violations of health and safety laws. The Defendant then tried to force the
Plaintiffs to vacate the premises.
On November 12,
2021, Defendant Maria de Los Angeles Villagrana filed an Answer.
On November 15,
2021, Defendant LAX Property Management LLC filed a Demurrer with a Motion to
Strike, which was OVERRULED.
On November 22,
2021, Defendant Julian Manuel Villagrana filed an Answer.
On February 4,
2022, Defendant LAX Property Management LLC filed an Answer.
On February 14,
2022, Plaintiffs filed a Demurrer without a Motion to Strike which the court
DENIED.
On March 24, 2023, Counsel for Defendants Juan Manuel
Villagrana and Maria de Los Angeles Villagrana filed a Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel which was GRANTED.
On October 17, 2023, Counsel for Defendant LAX Property
Management, LLC filed a substitution of attorney which was stricken by the
court.
On January 29, 2024, Counsel for Defendant LAX Property
Management, LLC filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel which the court
GRANTED.
On May 3, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
continue trial which the court GRANTED.
On April 29, 2025, Defendants Juan Manuel Villagrana and
Maria de Los Angeles Villagrana (Moving Defendants) filed the instant motion to
amend their answers.
On May 28, 2025, the court held a Final Status Conference
and ordered a briefing schedule for the pending motion to amend answer.
Pursuant to the court’s ruling, Plaintiff filed an
opposition on June 4, 2025. Moving Defendants filed a supplemental declaration
that same day.
LEGAL STANDARD:
CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may,
in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to
amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any
party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any
other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or
demurrer. The court may likewise, 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; and may upon like terms allow an answer to
be made after the time limited by this code.”
“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.)
Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall
(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.
Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), 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.
“Leave to amend a pleading, including an answer, is
entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.5th 474, 488.)
ANALYSIS:
Moving Defendants contend that amendment is proper because
the affirmative defense of set-off for rent owed arising out of the same
operative facts was inadvertently not plead in the answer. Plaintiffs argue
Moving Defendants did not explain the unreasonable four year delay in seeking
this amendment, that Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice due to lack of discovery
on the new claim, the defense would be futile, and the motion is procedurally
flawed.
The court in its discretion is granting Moving Defendants
leave to amend their Answer as proposed. First, Moving Defendants substantially
complied with the applicable CRC. They attached the proposed Thirty-Second
Affirmative Defense and indicated they did not discovery lack of this defense
until preparing for trial with their current attorney. Second, the court
rejects Plaintiffs assertion that they did not know that they needed to show how
much rent they paid. There 6th COA is a violation of CCP 1942.4 which
is only actionable if rent is collected. In other words, by filing this cause
of action, Plaintiff was on notice that they need to demonstrate that rent was
collected as an element of the offense. Third, Plaintiff has not shown
prejudice because the court can, as articulated at the Final Status Conference,
reopen discovery on this affirmative defense only.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Moving Defendants’ motion
for leave to amend.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
for Leave to Amend Answer is GRANTED;
2. Defendants
to file their First Amended Answer within 7 days of this ruling.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court