Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV42534, Date: 2022-09-02 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: 21STCV42534    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   September 2, 2022                             

CASE NAME:            Raul E Fuentes, et al. v. JJ Kansas, LLC

CASE NO.:                21STCV42534

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO A FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Raul E Fuentes, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of August 30, 2022.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiffs Raul E. Fuentes and Samuel Edgar North Fuentes, a minor through is Guardian ad litem, Rauel E Fuentes (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant JJ Kansas, LLC (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleges five causes of action, including negligence and Breach of Warranty of Habitability. Plaintiffs allege that they were tenants of the Unit 21 of a residential apartment building located at 4215 South Kansas Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90037 (“Subject Property”), which is owned and managed by Defendant. During the Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the Subject Property suffered from substandard conditions, including insect infestation, mold, faulty pipes, faulty wiring, etc.

On February 3, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

This Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint was filed on July 11, 2022. No opposition has been filed as of August 30, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (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 California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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 California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (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. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs move for leave to amend the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to add tenants of a different apartment, Unit 3, for a tenancy that commenced three years after Plaintiffs’ tenancy. While the claims against Defendants may be similar, they are distinct. In other words, this does not seem to be the same lawsuit, but rather two distinct, but similar claims against the same Defendant.

The Court finds that the adding these additional Plaintiffs and their unique claims through an amendment of the current complaint is inappropriate. The court takes no position on whether these separate claims are related and whether they may be subject to consolidation on a future date.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

            Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             September 2, 2022                  _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court