ARORA, et al. vs BRE PROPERTIES INC., et al.

22CV022506: ARORA, et al. vs BRE PROPERTIES INC., et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for leave to file second amended complaint; filed by Amit Arora (Plaintiff) + CRS# 247448382272 in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 06/08/2026 Joscelyn Jones

The Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed by Amit Arora, Kannu Priya Arora on 05/27/2026 is Denied.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED.

This case was filed on November 22, 2022. Trial is currently scheduled for July 24, 2026.

The currently operative pleading is Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, filed August 9, 2023, which alleges six causes of action.

Now, less than a month before the cutoff of discovery, Plaintiffs seek to file a Second Amended Complaint that alleges fourteen causes of action, nine of which are new (one of the causes of action from the First Amended Complaint is being omitted.) Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ characterization of the new causes of action as arising from the same general set of facts, the proposed Second Amended Complaint radically expands the scope of the claims asserted in this case and the theories of liability. For example, several of the proposed new causes of action are based on allegations that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their national origin or immigration status. No such claims, and no underlying facts supporting them, were alleged in the prior iterations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

A motion to amend a complaint must specify when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b)(3)-(4).) Plaintiffs fail to adequately do so. For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that one reason the amendment is sought is that in April 2026 she reviewed documents produced by Defendants showing that Plaintiffs had sent emails complaining about discrimination in October 2020. (See counsel’s declaration at paragraph 20.)

Whether Plaintiffs sent emails complaining about discrimination in 2020 is a fact within Plaintiffs’ own knowledge, and any such claim could have been included in the Complaint when it was filed in 2022. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that she learned facts supporting her proposed new claims for national origin discrimination in an interview with Plaintiffs on March 16, 2026. (See counsel’s declaration at paragraph 19.) Any such information was also within Plaintiffs’ own knowledge and could have been included in the Complaint filed in 2022.

An unwarranted and unexplained delay in presenting a proposed amendment is a sufficient reason for the court to deny the request. (See, e.g., Falcon v. Long Breach Genetics Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280.) Plaintiffs fail to offer a valid reason for failing to seek to allege nine new causes of action, alleging entirely new theories of liability and unpled facts that were at all times within Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge, until four years after the case was filed and only 22CV022506: ARORA, et al. vs BRE PROPERTIES INC., et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for leave to file second amended complaint; filed by Amit Arora (Plaintiff) + CRS# 247448382272 in Department 19 a few weeks before the close of discovery.

This motion is denied on that basis.