Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02759, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02759    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

JENNIFER HAAG, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

JOHN RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 23AHCV02759

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

November 19, 2024

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiffs Jennifer Haag and Anthony Giron (“Plaintiffs”) seek leave of court to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs initiated this action against defendant John Rodriguez (“Defendant”) on November 28, 2023, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of warranty of habitability, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and violation of Los Angeles Code of Ordinances section 8.52.130, arising from their tenancy at 289 Hampden Terrace, Alhambra, California 91801.

          On August 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to add claims under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq., the Americans of Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”), California Civil Code sections 54-55.53  

          Defendant filed an opposition brief on November 5, 2024.

          No reply brief is on file.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.) “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 . . . 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, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

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.  (Cal. 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek leave to add claims under the FHA, ADA, and CDA to “address newly discovered facts that support these claims.” (Motion, p. 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were “discovered during mediation in this matter which took place in July 2024.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that during the mediation, it was revealed that the premises were not compliant with ADA standards, contrary to the information previously available to Plaintiffs. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel further avers that Plaintiffs could not request leave to amend earlier because they “did not have access to the critical information regarding ADA compliance.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs’ motion and accompanying declaration are conclusory and Plaintiffs fail to specify what “new facts” emerged which necessitate the amendment. Also, Plaintiffs do not explain how any “new facts” about the premises could not have been discovered previously by the Plaintiffs inasmuch as they occupied the premises. The proposed amendments allege that plaintiff Jennifer Haag was denied accommodations for her wheelchair during her tenancy. (Motion, Ex. A, ¶¶ 47, 50, 53.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to comply with CRC 3.1324 because they do not state the underlying facts supporting the new claims and their inability to discover them earlier.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 19th day of November 2024

 

 

 

 

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.