Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC709021, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC709021 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: March
13, 2023
CASE NAME: Lester Singer, et al. Greystar Real Estate
Partners, LLC
CASE NO.: BC709021
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Lester Singer and Monica
Mercado
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Greystar California,
formerly known as Greystar RS CA, Inc.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
order granting leave to amend Plaintiffs’ complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in
part.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 6, 2018, Plaintiffs Lester Singer and Monica Mercado
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Greystar (“Defendant.”) The complaint
alleged six causes of action: (1) Premises Liability, (2) Negligence, (3)
Battery, (4) Assault, (5) Assault, and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress. The complaint alleges that they were tenants of Watermarke. On
February 4, 2018, they visited the 7th Floor, private tenants-only recreational
area to meet with some other acquaintances who were also Watermarke tenants.
They alleged that on the 7th Floor, unknown individuals aggressively confronted
plaintiffs and their acquaintances. Mercado witnessed these unknown individuals
beating Singer before fleeing. This physical altercation allegedly caused
Singer to suffer major physical injury and both plaintiffs to suffer extreme
mental anguish, pain and suffering. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief
that the individuals who assaulted Singer were not tenants, but gained access
to Watermarke through an Airbnb lodging arrangement.
On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed two Amendments to
Complaint (Ficititious/Incorrect Name) naming Does 1 and 2 as Greystar RS CA,
Inc., and ASB Watermarke Owner, LLC.
On July 12, 2022, the scheduled trial was continued.
On August 17, 2022, Defendants filed a Demurrer, which was
SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
The current Motion for Leave to Amend was filed on February
22, 2023. Defendants’ Opposition was filed on February 28, 2023. Plaintiffs’
Reply was filed on March 6, 2023.
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.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the
proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a
demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have
discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a
valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by
further amendment. (See California
Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274,
281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v.
American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)
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 Defendant ASB Watermarke
Owner, LLC, as a defendant to the first and second causes of action and to
substitute Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC with Defendant Greystar
California, Inc.
Plaintiffs argue that these
amendments should be allowed for four main reasons. First, Plaintiffs’ mistake
as to the identity of the entities was good faith error. Defendant’s own
counsel was unsure of the correct identity. Moreover, the proposed amendments
relate back to the filing of the original complaint; Plaintiffs have
“substituted-in the correct LLC aliases using a judicial council form.” (Motion
7: 21-22.) Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are estopped from
raising any argument concerning statute of limitations because Defendant
Greystar has “failed to inform both Plaintiffs as well as the Court that it is
the incorrect Greystar entity.” (Motion 9: 13-15.) Second, this motion is
timely; when Plaintiffs learned of Defendant’s right identity on July 5, 2022,
Plaintiffs attempted to correct this error less than a week later. After the
demurrer, Plaintiffs had to demonstrate that leave to amend should be granted. Third,
the proposed amendment does not prejudice defendants because the amendments do
not alter facts and Defendants have had fair notice as they themselves thought
they were the property entity and discovered this inaccuracy on the eve of
trial. Lastly, including all Defendants is proper so the matter may be
determined on the merits. Plaintiffs argue that these Defendants “were privy to
their role in this complaint and were cognizant of the suits existence since
they were served, or at least when they filed their Demurrer.” (Motion 11:
14-16.)
Defendants argue this motion should
not be granted for five reasons. First, Defendants will be prejudiced by this
amendment. Defendant’s prior counsel emailed Plaintiff’s attorney in February
2022 about the incorrect name, but in July 2022 right before trial, Plaintiffs’
counsel indicated that this was the first time hearing this information.
Thereafter, trial was vacated once it was determined the Doe defendant
amendments did not seek leave of court. Thus, because this issue was raised on
the eve of trial, Defendants did not prepare on these issues. Second,
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally defective because it
does not provide a valid basis for the motion. Specifically, the motion is not
accompanied with a declaration, under Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a)(3). Third,
Defendant argues that the proposed amendment changes the substance of the
original complaint, as it changes “how the party would have conducted discovery
and defended the case to date.” (Opp. 4: 23-24.) Fourth, Defendants argue that
these amendments are barred by the statute of limitations because there are no
factual allegations against Defendant in the first and second causes of action,
Plaintiff will have to change the facts and therefore would not “relate back”
to the original complaint. Lastly, if this motion is granted, Defendants argue
that Plaintiffs would be in violation of CCP § 583.210, which states that “the
summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after
the action is commenced against the defendant.”
“It is the general rule
that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed.” (Simons v. Kern County (1965) 234
Cal.App.2d 362, 367). Further, “and it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be
justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may
properly present his case.” (Morgan v.
Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d
527, 530). “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the
motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission
to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the
right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is
not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959)
172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
First, the Court finds Defendants’
procedural argument unavailing. Under Rule 3.1324, a party is required to
provide a declaration that contains about the amendment’s effect, why the
amendment is proper, when the facts were discovered, and why the request was
not made earlier. However, the declaration and motion have enough facts to
glean this information: it was not until July 5, 2022, that Plaintiffs became
aware of Defendants’ true identity.
As for the amendment correcting
Defendant’s name as Greystar California, Inc., the Court finds that this
amendment is appropriate. While this matter was filed back in 2018, it was not
until February 2022 that Defendant’s own counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel
of the proper name for Defendant. Even though Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’
counsel’s contention that the email was sent to junk mail is suspect, the Court
finds this argument unavailing. Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided a declaration,
under penalty of perjury, that this email was sent to Mr. Castillo’s spam
folder. Moreover, even after discovering this information in July 2022,
Plaintiffs promptly attempted to amend the complaint to correct the Defendant’s
name. The Court rejects the notion that this Defendant is prejudiced or changes
the “substance of the allegation.” The court would note this entity is
represented by the same counsel as the prior Greystar entity. If Discovery
needs to be reopened, a request can be made to the Court. But a blanket suggest
that this correctly named entity will be prejudiced has not been shown by
evidence, and frankly, is implausible.
As for adding Defendant Watermarke,
the Court finds that this amendment is not proper. Plaintiff fails to offer any
evidence on why the owner Defendant’s identity could not be discovered earlier.
In Reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that “from the facts may (sic) may have had suspicion
of ASB Watermark Owner, LLC’s wrongdoing” they nonetheless took no effort to name
them until recently. (Reply p. 2, lines 18-19). A change in strategy is insufficient
to name a new party as to the first two causes of action which only named the management
company. Stated otherwise, there are no “Doe” defendants for the first two
causes of action. Moreover, it is highly questionable to add an entity Defendant
as a Doe defendant for the remaining causes ofa action that allege that “individual”
defendant’s identity was unknown. There is no evidence or even argument that
Defendant Watermarke’s identity was unknown.
More fundamentally, since Watermarke
is not properly a Doe defendant, there is a statute of limitations issue as to
the first two causes of action. In Eghtesad,
the Court provided three ways in which a complaint can be amended based on the
relation-back doctrine after the statute of limitations has run.
After the statute of limitations
has run, the relation-back doctrine can save an amended complaint that identifies
a fictitiously-named defendant and asserts a cause of action against that
defendant only if: (1) the amended complaint is based on the same general state
of facts as the original; (2) the original complaint stated a valid cause of
action against the now-identified defendant; and (3) the plaintiff was
“genuinely ignorant” of the defendant's identity or the facts rendering
defendant liable when the original complaint was filed.” (Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2020) 51
Cal.App.5th 406, 415.)
Here, while the amendment complaint
is based on the same facts (Plaintiffs were tenants of the Watermarke Tower
Apartments, which were operated by Greystar, and were assaulted by unknown
individuals in a tenant-only area), and Plaintiffs were genuinely ignorant of
the correct name for Defendant Greystar (it was not until 2022 when Defendant’s
counsel informed Plaintiffs of Greystar’s correct name that Plaintiffs
discovered “facts as to the building owners knowledge of the negligence” (Reply
2: 16-20)), the original complaint did not state a valid cause of action
against Watermarke. The original complaint does identify Does 1 through 10 in
the caption of the complaint, but fails to include these Doe Defendants in the
first and second causes of action. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a
valid cause of action as to Watermarke, and the amendment is invalid.
Motion for Leave to Amend is
GRANTED, in part. Plaintiffs may correct Defendant Greystar Real Estate
Partners, LLC, as Defendant Greystar California, Inc.
Conclusion:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion for Leave to Amend is
GRANTED, in part, as to Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, but
DENIED, as to Defendant ASB Watermarke Owner, LLC.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March
13, 2023 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court