Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV01688, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV01688    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: W

TERRI SIEGEL V. SVETLANA ANGELOVA

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing:   October 19, 2022               Trial Date:       Not Set Yet

Department:         W                                       Case No.:         21VECV01688

Moving Party:             Plaintiff, Terri Siegel

Responding Party:       Defendant, Svetlana Angelova

BACKGROUND 

This matter concerns various alleged habitability issues arising from Plaintiff Terri Siegel’s (“Plaintiff”) tenancy at the property located at 5067 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Woodland Hills, California 91364 4 (“Subject Property”) from approximately July 27, 2020, through November 13, 2021. Defendant, Svetlana Angelova (“Defendant Angelova”), Anatoly Valenti (“Valenti”), and Onerent, Inc. (“Onerent”) all owned and/or operated the Subject Property during Plaintiff’s tenancy. (Declaration of Donel R. Lopez (“Lopez Decl.”) ¶ 2.) On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint based on the above described facts. The Complaint alleged the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) retaliation under Cal. Civ. Code 1942.5; (3) trespass; (4) deceit; (5) rescission; (6) battery; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (8) violation of Tenant Relief Act. All of the causes of action Plaintiff’s original Complaint were alleged against Defendant Svetlana only. Plaintiff was not represented by an attorney at the time. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff subsequently retained Lepera + Associates, PC to represent her in this matter. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff seeks to file a First Amended Complaint to clarify and introduce additional facts to support the original causes of action for breach of contract, retaliation, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Tenant Relief Act. The proposed amendments also remove the causes of action for trespass, deceit, and rescission and introduce new causes of action for constructive eviction, retaliatory eviction, negligent violation of statutory duty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of statutory warranty of habitability, breach of duty of quiet enjoyment, nuisance, premises liability, negligence, assault. The proposed amendments seek to include Valenti and Onerent as defendants. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5.)

No opposition has been filed.

[TENTATIVE] RULING 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  

DISCUSSION 

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)  

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) 

Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint by : (1) clarifying and introducing additional facts to support the original causes of action for breach of contract, retaliation, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Tenant Relief Act; (2) removing the causes of action for trespass, deceit, and rescission and introduce new causes of action for constructive eviction, retaliatory eviction, negligent violation of statutory duty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of statutory warranty of habitability, breach of duty of quiet enjoyment, nuisance, premises liability, negligence, assault; and (3) including Valenti and Onerent as defendants. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5.)

Proposed Amendments

An amended complaint relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint and thus avoids the bar of the statute of limitations so long as recovery sought in both pleadings is based upon the same general set of facts. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 489 [internal citations omitted].) As stated above, whether a new cause of action is raised is irrelevant – rather, the court only decides whether the amended pleading and the original pleading arise out of the same general set of facts (Id.) The power to permit amendments is interpreted very liberally as long as the plaintiff does not attempt to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant. (Herrera v. Superior Court (1981) 158 Cal. App. 3d 255, 259.)

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed new causes of action arise from the same exact set of facts alleged in the original complaint, as they pertain to the various habitability issues that Plaintiff suffered during her tenancy at the Subject Property from approximately July 27, 2020, through November 13, 2021. Thus, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments relate back to the original complaint and are based upon the same general set of facts.

Adding Defendants

When a plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add new defendant, a Court will permit the amendment so long as the statute of limitations has not expired against the new defendants. (Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 380, 386.) The amendment will be permitted regardless of whether the plaintiff was “truly ignorant” of the new defendant’s identity. (See id.) Here, Plaintiff is permitted to add Anatoly Valenti and Onerent, Inc. as defendants in this matter. The filing of the proposed First Amended Complaint would still be well within the statute of limitations for all of the new causes of action against Valenti and Onerent. As such, Plaintiff is permitted to add Valenti and Onerent as defendants in her First Amended Complaint.

The Motion includes a copy of the proposed first amended complaint, specifications by reference to pages and lines of allegations that are to be added, specifications of allegations in the previous pleading that are proposed to be deleted and a declaration specifying the effect and necessity of the proposed amendment. (Motion at pp. 27, Lopez Decl., ¶6.)

Given the liberal policy in favor of granting leave to amend and that Plaintiff satisfied the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Terri Siegel’s Motion to For Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is to be filed and served within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.