Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 08/24/2023 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs E & A Monroy Holdings LLC and Sai Supermarkets, Inc. dba Del Valle Supermarkets (collectively, Plaintiffs) motion for leave to file Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in this action on February 24, 2022. The initial Complaint was brought against Defendants Hsu Family Trust, Summer Palace LLC, and Carniceria Mi Mercadito, LLC and included five causes of action: (1) quiet title (prescriptive easement); (2) quiet title (equitable easement); (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of restrictive covenant; and (5) trespass. After the parties met and conferred regarding Plaintiffs allegations, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on April 5, 2022. The FAC included the same causes of action against the same Defendants. On August 23, 2022, the Court overruled Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs FAC.
Additionally, on April 5, 2022, Defendant Jieun Hsu, as trustee of the Hsu Family Trust (erroneously sued as Hsu Family Trust) (Hsu) filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs with four causes of action: (1) specific performance; (2) injunction; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) quiet title. Hsu filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint on May 23, 2022, which added Defendant Carniceria Mi Mercadito, LLC (Carniceria) as a Cross-Complainant. The causes of action in the First Amended Cross-Complaint are (1) breach of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; (2) quiet title: driveway easement adverse possession; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) quiet title: monument sign. The operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint, with the same parties and causes of action, was filed on September 16, 2022.
As is evident from the causes of action in the parties respective pleadings, this case revolves around a dispute between adjacent property owners over the use of a driveway easement. Via this motion, Plaintiffs now seek leave to filed their SAC to address the following. First, Plaintiffs seek to add Ravi Singh, the principal and sole owner of Defendant Summer Palace, LLC, as an individual defendant under an alter ego theory. Second, Plaintiffs seek to add three new causes of action, which Plaintiffs assert arose after the filing of the FAC: (1) nuisance: interference with use and enjoyment of easement (drive-way easement); (2) breach of grant of easement (driveway easement); and (3) equitable driveway easement. Third, Plaintiffs seek to substitute Hsu for the erroneously named Defendant Hsu Family Trust.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
No trial date has been set in this action.
Judicial policy strongly favors allowing amendments of pleadings so long as it does not prejudice the other parties. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [[A]bsent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings to prevail.].) 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
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 08/24/2023 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54
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 (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice may exist where the proposed amendments would require additional discovery, a trial continuance, or would otherwise significantly prolong the litigation, or if the plaintiff sought amendment after unwarranted delay. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488; P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.54th 1332, 1345.)
Here, Plaintiffs have complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Additionally, since there is no opposition, there is no evidence that any party will be prejudiced by permitting the proposed amendment. Thus, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs shall file and serve the proposed SAC attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Matthew R. Richard by no later than August 31, 2023.
Although not required by court rule or statute, Plaintiffs are directed to present a copy of this order when the first amended complaint is presented for filing.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 08/24/2023 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 54
Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.