Case Number: SS025018 Hearing Date: March 01, 2019 Dept: P

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Department P

TENTATIVE RULING

Case Name: Ronald Wormser et al. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, SS025018

Motion: Petitioner Ronald Wormser’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition

Hearing Date: 3/1/2019

The initial pleading contained causes of action for administrative mandate and inverse condemnation. Plaintiff alleged defendant Santa Monica Rent Control Board abused its discretion by failing to grant his 2014 application for an owner-occupied exemption from rent control for properties of three units or less, because this exemption had previously been granted in 1979 and 1985. On April 11, 2016 this court sustained a demurrer to both causes of action without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed as to the first cause of action only; the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision.

Petitioner now moves for leave to file a first amended petition, naming Jill Grannis (co-owner of the property) as a Doe defendant, clarifying that petitioner is alleging equitable estoppel as well as collateral estoppel and adding new claims of damages for diminished rental income due to being forced to invoke the Ellis Act instead of being granted the owner-occupied exemption from rent control at issue.

California courts are required to permit liberal amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice. (Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 352.) Generally, amendment must be permitted unless there is unwarranted delay in requesting leave to amend or undue prejudice to the opposing party. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.)

Moving papers argue the amendment is necessary and was brought promptly after the court granted defendant’s motion to strike. (See Morantz decl. at ¶¶1-3.) Petitioner provides an adequate explanation as to why the first amended complaint was not filed until October 2018. (Id at ¶2.) There is no unwarranted delay. Leave to amend will only be denied if the opposing party is prejudiced.

Trial is not scheduled, and respondent does not argue that it would be prejudiced if the motion is granted. The arguments respondent does raise – that petitioner’s proposed amendment violates the court’s prior demurrer ruling or exceeds the Court of Appeal’s opinion – more properly belong in a demurrer. As there is no prejudice, and petitioner did not unduly delay in making the instant motion, it would be an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend. GRANTED.