| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, October 7, 2025, Line 2. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] 2 - PLAINTIFFS J. BONNEY, AND VIVIAN KENNEDY's Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint. Hearing required. The court's tentative appears below.
Plaintiff's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The court exercises great liberality in permitting amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) The court may deny amendment where there is undue delay and prejudice. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) It may also deny amendment where a proposed claim is futile. (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 828.)
Plaintiff has leave to file a consolidated/master second amended complaint.
Plaintiff's request to substitute 1810 Jackson, LLC in place of Marti Jimena is denied as futile. Plaintiff contends that 1810 Jackson, LLC is the owner of unit 4. The proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges that the LLC breached duties owed to plaintiffs and committed elder abuse. But the allegations reveal that plaintiffs are really attempting to hold the homeowners' association and its officers liable for the alleged misconduct. There are no allegations regarding how the LLC-merely as owner of one of the properties-owed a duty to plaintiffs.
There is no allegation that it was an officer/director or on the Board of Managers of the homeowner's association or how it can be vicariously liable for the association's alleged wrongdoing. In addition, the proposed amendment is untimely and prejudicial. The ownership of the unit was a matter of public record and given the current trial date (January 20, 2026), the LLC is unable to file a motion for summary judgment or adjudication.
The motion is granted to add individual board members as Lee and Hayes as defendants on the elder abuse claim. The declaration of Taleghani does not comply with CRC 3.1324(b)(3)-(4) as it fails to explain what facts were recently unearthed to warrant the amendment and why it was not made earlier. Nevertheless, the individual defendants have been part of this case since its inception and have been defendants on related claims. Given the liberal policy in favor the amendment and since the amendment is based on the same operative facts, the motion is granted.
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?”
The motion is denied insofar as it seeks to add individual board member Marti as a defendant on this claim. The proposed SAC states only that she was a board member during the relevant time but her deposition testimony shows she left the board before the events challenged in the SAC. Plaintiff's reply does not sufficiently address this issue. Defendants make the same argument as to Hayes but the court sees overlap between her board service and challenged board actions. The parties shall be prepared at argument to address these issues.
The motion is granted to plead relief under Probate Code section 850. The petition can be combined with the civil complaint. There is no showing that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition and allowing the amendment will further judicial economy. In fact, there is no separate "probate court" in California. Rather, probate jurisdiction is vested in the superior court. (Probate Code section 7050; In re Michael R. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 126, 131, fn. 1.) [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |