Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV13826, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13826    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-29-24

Case #: 23STCV13826

Trial Date: Not Set

LEAVE TO AMEND

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Complainant, Defendant/Cross-Defendant, Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Catani, LLC, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Cross-Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff Catani, LLC became the assignee to a lease for 117 E. Harvard St., Glendale. Defendant Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P. owns the parcel and assigned the lease. Plaintiff opened Oak & Vine Restaurant on the first floor and loft area of the premises. In 2017, renovations began for the opening of “Veranda” restaurant operating on the rooftop immediately above Oak & Vine. Defendant Elevate Venues, LLC was responsible for the operation of Veranda.

Plaintiff alleges the renovations, including improperly installed drainage and plumbing systems, caused water leakage into Oak & Vine restaurant, thereby interfering with business operations. On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Negligence, Implied Contractual Indemnity, Breach of Contract/Lease, and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. On August 31, 2023, Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P. answered the complaint, and filed a cross-complaint against Elevate Venues and Catani, LLC for Indemnity and Contribution. Plaintiff answered the cross-complaint on September 27, 2023. On December 15, 2023, Elevate Venues answered the complaint, and cross-complaint. On December 20, 2023, Elevate Venues, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for Equitable Indemnity, Apportionment, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Brand Boulevard Associates, L.P. moves for leave to amend to file a first amended cross-complaint in order to add a new cause of action for Express Contractual Indemnity and Breach of Contract. The motion comes in order for Defendant/Cross-Complainant to “seek all viable legal theories” against the restaurant operators. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, which states as follows:

“(a)      Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(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.

(b)        Supporting declaration

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…” (emphasis added).

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.) The court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

The motion comes more than five months after the filing of the cross-complaint without any explanation for the timing of the motion. [Declaration of Gregory Dilts.] Because the changes arise from the common core of facts and otherwise adds no material change to the underlying action, however, the court finds no showing of significant prejudice to Defendant. Any potential claimed prejudice insufficiently outweighs the liberal policy for leave to amend. No trial date is set, thereby allowing sufficient time to address any potential new arguments pre-trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487; Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.)

The motion is therefore granted. Moving party to file a separate copy of the first amended cross-complaint within 10 days of the order.

Case Management Conference set for May 17, 2024.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.