Motion for Leave to File Amended Cross Complaint

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.February 13, 2015

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 08:20:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kent Kellegrew COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 10/26/2015 DEPT: 21 CLERK: Julie Childs REPORTER/ERM: None CASE NO: 56-2015-00463988-CU-CO-VTA CASE TITLE: Mendez vs. Arroyo CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Contract - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion for Leave to File Amended Cross-Complaint First MOVING PARTY: Sergio Armando Arroyo CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross Complaint memorandum of Points and Authorities Exhibits, 09/08/2015 STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Lori Dobrin, specially appearing for counsel H.G. Long, present for Cross - Defendant,Cross - Complainant,Plaintiff(s). Stolo At 9:07 a.m., court convenes in this matter with all parties present as previously indicated. The Court finds/orders: The Court's tentative is adopted as the Court's ruling. The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file an amended cross complaint. CCP § 473; Higgins v. del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App.3d 558, 564-65 (absent prejudice, delay alone not ground for denial) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sergio Armando Arroyo moves for leave to file a 1st Amended Cross-Complaint to add a fourth cause of action for violations of the Mobilehome Residency Act (Civil Code §798, et seq.). Mr. Arroyo says discovery has revealed Plaintiffs Mendez committed numerous violations of the Mobilehome Residency Law, and that Plaintiffs, even though requested, have not produced in discovery any Manufactured Home and Mobilehome Transfer Disclosure Statement complying with §798.74.4; that they failed to produce a fully executed rental agreement or statement complying with §798.75(a), or a Mobilehome Park Rental Agreement Disclosure Form complying with §798.75.5. The allegations of the proposed 1st Amended Cross-Complaint contend that Plaintiffs did not even notify the mobilehome park management of the sale, must less comply with the Mobilehome Residency Law. Opposition: VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 10/26/2015 Page 1 DEPT: 21 CASE TITLE: Mendez vs. Arroyo CASE NO: 56-2015-00463988-CU-CO-VTA Defendant Arroyo's motion is procedurally defective because it contains no declaration of any kind. Although there are a variety of factual statements in the Moving Brief, these statements are pure argument and there is no evidence supporting them. California Rule of Court 3.1324(b) requires that a declaration satisfying the stated requirements accompany a motion for leave to amend. Here, no declaration has been filed, much less one that satisfies Rule 3.1324(b)'s requirements. As a result, no evidence has been presented as to why the claims in the 1st Amended Cross-Complaint could not have been presented when the original Answer and Cross-Complaint were filed, and why there has been a delay in seeking leave to amend. Analysis: 1. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment to the pleadings. See, e.g., Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. Of course, if the party seeking amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App.3d 486, 490. This is a two pronged analysis. Higgins v. del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App.3d 558, 564-65 (absent prejudice, delay alone not ground for denial). Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence or added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App.4th 471, 486-88. 2. Def/XC Arroyo has offered explanation for his delay in seeking leave to add this statutory cause of action. He says he propounded the discovery, made motions to compel, and still no documents. Ps/Xdef. have not made any showing of prejudice from the proposed amendment. /n Notice to be given by Mr. Haffner. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 10/26/2015 Page 2 DEPT: 21