17-CIV-02353 PAUL GRIGORIEFF, ET AL. VS. JOHN LORTS, ET AL.

PAUL GRIGORIEFF JOHN LORTS
BRIAN W. NEWCOMB SAMUEL L. PHILLIPS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiffs Paul Grigorieff and Maria Grigorieff (“Plaintiffs”) for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED.

The court has discretion whether or not to allow a supplemental pleading to be filed. (Louie Queriolo Trucking, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. of Kern County (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 194, 197.) The same policy favoring liberality in amended pleadings applies so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be resolved in a single lawsuit if reasonably possible. (Id.)

Plaintiffs seek to supplement the Complaint to include allegations of additional trespasses and nuisances that they have discovered since the Complaint was filed. The only prejudice argued by Defendants is that they have already deposed Plaintiffs and should be allowed to conduct further depositions of Plaintiffs as to the new allegations. At this time though, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs refuse to stipulate to appear for further depositions regarding these new allegations. (See C.C.P. § 2025.610(a), (b).) Defendants also have not addressed the amount of time needed for further depositions of Plaintiffs. Thus, Defendants may bring a motion for further depositions of Plaintiffs, if necessary, once the Supplemental Complaint has been filed.

Plaintiffs are to file and serve their proposed Supplemental Complaint by March 8, 2019.

Defendants’ Objections to the Declaration of Paul Grigorieff are ruled on as follows:

1. Paragraph 2, p.2, lines 7-8: OVERRULED. 2. Paragraph 6, p.3, lines 3-4: SUSTAINED based on inadmissible lay opinion. 3. Paragraph 10, p.3, lines 21-28: OVERRULED. 4. Paragraph 11, p.4: SUSTAINED based on speculation. 5. Paragraph 12, p.4, lines 7-15: SUSTAINED based on speculation. 6. Paragraph 13, p.4, lines 16-20: SUSTAINED based on speculation. 7. Paragraph 14, p.4, lines 21-26: SUSTAINED based on speculation.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.