15515 Sunset Blvd LLC v. the Via De La Paz Association, et al.

(Id., P.P. 207-208.) Without specific facts showing that the refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent, the motion to strike must be granted with leave to amend.

Similarly, as to the FEHA interactive process claim, more specific facts are required to show that Plaintiff sought a reasonable accommodation, such that Regency refusal to acknowledge the requests could be considered malicious, oppressive or fraudulent. (FAC P.P. 213-214.)

Accordingly, the motion to strike is: GRANTED as to the supporting allegations of the trespass, negligent hiring, fraud, FEHA accommodation, and FEHA interactive process claims, with 20 days' leave to amend; GRANTED without leave to amend as to the contract cause of action; and DENIED as to the remaining allegations.

Finally, the Court will caution Plaintiff against disparaging the Court in her legal briefs. Specifically, in the opposition to the motion to strike, Plaintiff states "[t]here are few more malicious, oppressive or fraudulent acts than putting human beings (again including Plaintiff and renters - no matter how much Defendants and the Court hates them) . . .." (Opp. p.2.)

As a licensed attorney, the Court reminds Plaintiff that like all California lawyers, she is duty-bound to "maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sec. 6068(b).

Plaintiff must act in a manner that "instill[s] public confidence in the legal system and our judicial system." (Scott C. Moody, Inc. v. Staar Surgical Co. (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 1043, 1048.)

As stated in In re S.C., (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 396, 422, "[d]isparaging the trial judge is a tactic that is not taken lightly . . .. Counsel better make sure he or she has the facts right before venturing into such dangerous territory because it is [sanctionable] for an attorney to make the unsupported assertion that the judge was 'act[ing] out of bias toward a party.' "

Comments such as those made by Plaintiff are unsupported, and Plaintiff is cautioned against making such baseless allegations in the future.

Blvd LLC, v. the Via De La Paz Association, et al. CASE NO.: 26SMCV00127 MOTION: Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint HEARING DATE: 8/13/2026

Legal Standard

If a party wishes to amend a pleading after an answer has been filed, or after a demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the pleading as a matter of course, the party must obtain permission from the court before amendment. (CCP Sec.Sec. 473(a)(1), 576.)

Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. "The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . .." (CCP Sec. 473(a)(1); see CCP Sec. 576.)

Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)

Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint "at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial." (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].)

Where leave is sought to add entirely new claims, the court may grant leave to amend if the new claims are based on the same general set of facts, and the amendment will not prejudice the opposing party. (Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 600-602; Glaser v. Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].)

Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490).

An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [leave properly denied where plaintiff sought leave on the eve of trial, nearly two years after the complaint was originally filed and gave no explanation for the delay which prejudiced defendant who did not discover or depose many of the witnesses who would support the new allegations and had not marshaled evidence in opposition of the new allegations].)

Procedurally, a motion for leave to amend must state with particularity what allegations are to be amended. Namely, it must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and/or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).)

The motion must be accompanied by a declaration specifying: (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. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(b).)

The motion must also be accompanied by the proposed amended pleading, numbered to differentiate it from the prior pleadings or amendments. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).)

It is within the court's discretion to require compliance with Rule 3.1324 before granting leave to amend. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Analysis

Plaintiff 15515 Sunset Blvd, LLC moves for leave to file the First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

The motion substantively complies with Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed pleading.

Counsel explains that substantial new facts have arisen since the filing of the original Complaint on January 8, 2026, including the Board's June 23, 2026, Rebuild Resolution, LADBS structural plan-check deficiencies obtained through a Public Records Act request, the Board's documented statutory defaults under Corporations Code Sec.Sec. 7511(c) and 8333, and the Board's administration of a contested director election while simultaneously proceeding to commit $33.6 million in trust funds to reconstruction. (May Decl., P. 4.)

The proposed FAC seeks to challenge these new actions. The facts arise from recent events, and Plaintiff promptly moved to amend on July 14, 2026. Thus, there is no substantial delay in bringing the proposed amendments.

Furthermore, no substantive prejudice is apparent from any insubstantial delay. At best, Defendants note that there may be increased discovery costs regarding the new causes of action. However, this is not the type of substantive prejudice justifying denial of leave to amend.

Defendants also argue that the new causes of action will interfere with the Board's governance and delay the fire recovery efforts. Of course, Plaintiff is contending that the Board is conducting itself improperly, and attempts to interfere with that improper conduct. The action would only truly interfere with the Board's conduct if Plaintiff is successful in its challenges. The truth of the challenges cannot be determined at this stage.

Otherwise, Defendants argue that leave should be denied based upon futility. While the Court may deny leave to amend for futility, and Defendants have raised potential concerns with the newly pled causes of action, the Court does not find denial would be proper given the liberality of leave.

Defendants may make their objections to the pleading or the merits of the case in the context of a procedurally proper motion. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [after leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading].)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file the proposed amended complaint by August 20, 2026. | Home -->)" -->