1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC KLAUMENZER; SARAH ) Case No.: 25-cv-02244-BEN-VET KLAUMENZER; NATALIE ) 12 KLAUMENZER, a minor, through ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 13 guardian ad litem; and NIXXON ) MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 11), KLAUMENZER, a minor, through ) GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND TO 14 guardian ad litem, ) FILE FIRST AMENDED 15 ) COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 9), AND Plaintiff, ) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 17 ) DISMISS AS MOOT (ECF NO. 2) LIBERTY MILITARY HOUSING ) 18 HOLDING LLC; SAN DIEGO FAMILY ) HOUSING LLC, LINCOLN MILITARY 19 ) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP; LMH ) 20 SAN DIEGO PROPERTY ) MANAGEMENT GP INC.; and DOES 1 21 ) through 50 inclusive, ) 22 Defendant. ) 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Before the Court are three matters: (1) Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ First 3 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11); (2) Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a First 4 Amended Complaint (ECF Nos 9, 12); and (3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5 2). Plaintiffs Sarah and Eric Klaumenzer and their minor children Nixxon and Natalie 6 Klaumenzer as guardian ad litem bring this action against San Diego Family Housing, 7 LLC, et al. arising from alleged uninhabitable conditions at a residential property. For 8 the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike, GRANTS 9 Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. 11 BACKGROUND 12 A. Factual Background 13 Sarah Klaumenzer, an employee of the United States Navy, and her husband, Eric, 14 have five children. On June 6, 2020, Sarah Klaumenzer signed a lease for the property 15 located at 4528 Gainard Way, San Diego, California 92124. In March 2024, Plaintiffs 16 vacated the property, alleging health concerns stemming from excessive moisture 17 intrusion, elevated levels of bio-irritants, volatile organic compounds, severe microbial 18 contamination, mold, and other aerotoxins associated with damp conditions. 19 B. Procedural History 20 Plaintiffs filed this action is California Superior Court. Defendants removed the 21 case to this Court on August 28, 2025. On September 4, 2025, Defendants filed a motion 22 to dismiss, asserting defects in the manner of service and failure to state a claim, along 23 with a request for judicial notice in support. 24 On October 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 25 Within that response, Plaintiffs included a request for leave to file an amended complaint 26 and attached a proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs did not file a separate 27 motion for leave to amend but instead consolidated their request within their opposition 28 brief. 1 On October 10, 2025, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to 2 dismiss. (ECF No. 8). Defendants included a Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice 3 containing a Certificate of Amendment from the State of Delaware and a Certificate of 4 Limited Partnership of Lincoln Military Property Management LP. 5 On October 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a revised proposed First Amended Complaint 6 (“FAC”). 7 On October 31, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ FAC. 8 Plaintiffs filed a response on November 24, 2025, and Defendants filed a reply on 9 December 1, 2025. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 Motions to amend are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which, as 12 relevant here, provides that a party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course 13 within twenty-one days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b) but otherwise must 14 obtain either leave of the court or the written consent of the adverse party to amend. Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 15(a); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 16 2003) (citing Fed. Civ. P. 15(a)). 17 The general policy provided by Rule 15(a)(2) that the court should freely give 18 leave “when justice so requires” is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 19 Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1051 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 20 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, leave should be “freely given” absent 21 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 22 cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing 23 party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. 24 Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dept. 25 of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Amendment under the Federal Rules 26 of Civil Procedure should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the 27 opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.”) (internal 28 quotation omitted). Of these factors, prejudice is the most important. Eminence Capital, 1 LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing 2 prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, a trial court “should be guided by the 4 underlying purpose of Rule 15(a). . . to facilitate decisions on merits, rather than on 5 technicalities or pleadings.” James v. Pillar, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 6 United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979-80 (9th Cir. 1981)). Absent prejudice or strong 7 showing of the other Foman factors, there is a presumption in favor of granting leave to 8 amend. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (internal citation omitted). 9 ANALYSIS 10 A. Leave to Amend 11 Plaintiffs seek leave to amend for two reasons: (1) discovery of additional 12 clarifying information regarding the corporate identity and ownership of “Liberty 13 Housing” and its related entities; and (2) correction of a misnomer in the naming of the 14 corporate entities by adding interrelated corporate defendants. (ECF No. 7 at 7.) 15 Plaintiffs seek to add Lincoln Military Property Management LP, LMH Military Property 16 Management LP, and LMH San Diego Property Management GP Inc. as defendants, 17 alleging these entities owned, maintained, controlled, and managed the property at issue 18 under the brand names “Liberty Military Housing” and “Lincoln Military Housing.” 19 Although Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion for leave to amend, the Court 20 may consider their request in the interest of judicial efficiency. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a 22 party.”). 23 Here, Plaintiffs first learned of the additional related entities when Defendants filed 24 their motion to dismiss on September 4, 2025. (ECF No. 12 at ¶8.) Plaintiffs contend 25 Defendants’ motion referenced these entities in attached documents. (Id.) Plaintiffs then 26 filed a proposed FAC on October 6, 2025, and a revised proposed FAC on October 17, 27 2025, after Defendants’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice revealed the existence 28 of LMH San Diego Property Management GP, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9.) 1 Moreover, Defendants’ own filing supports Plaintiffs’ position that the corporate 2 structure created confusion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC KLAUMENZER; SARAH ) Case No.: 25-cv-02244-BEN-VET KLAUMENZER; NATALIE ) 12 KLAUMENZER, a minor, through ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 13 guardian ad litem; and NIXXON ) MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 11), KLAUMENZER, a minor, through ) GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND TO 14 guardian ad litem, ) FILE FIRST AMENDED 15 ) COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 9), AND Plaintiff, ) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 17 ) DISMISS AS MOOT (ECF NO. 2) LIBERTY MILITARY HOUSING ) 18 HOLDING LLC; SAN DIEGO FAMILY ) HOUSING LLC, LINCOLN MILITARY 19 ) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP; LMH ) 20 SAN DIEGO PROPERTY ) MANAGEMENT GP INC.; and DOES 1 21 ) through 50 inclusive, ) 22 Defendant. ) 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Before the Court are three matters: (1) Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ First 3 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11); (2) Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a First 4 Amended Complaint (ECF Nos 9, 12); and (3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5 2). Plaintiffs Sarah and Eric Klaumenzer and their minor children Nixxon and Natalie 6 Klaumenzer as guardian ad litem bring this action against San Diego Family Housing, 7 LLC, et al. arising from alleged uninhabitable conditions at a residential property. For 8 the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike, GRANTS 9 Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. 11 BACKGROUND 12 A. Factual Background 13 Sarah Klaumenzer, an employee of the United States Navy, and her husband, Eric, 14 have five children. On June 6, 2020, Sarah Klaumenzer signed a lease for the property 15 located at 4528 Gainard Way, San Diego, California 92124. In March 2024, Plaintiffs 16 vacated the property, alleging health concerns stemming from excessive moisture 17 intrusion, elevated levels of bio-irritants, volatile organic compounds, severe microbial 18 contamination, mold, and other aerotoxins associated with damp conditions. 19 B. Procedural History 20 Plaintiffs filed this action is California Superior Court. Defendants removed the 21 case to this Court on August 28, 2025. On September 4, 2025, Defendants filed a motion 22 to dismiss, asserting defects in the manner of service and failure to state a claim, along 23 with a request for judicial notice in support. 24 On October 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 25 Within that response, Plaintiffs included a request for leave to file an amended complaint 26 and attached a proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs did not file a separate 27 motion for leave to amend but instead consolidated their request within their opposition 28 brief. 1 On October 10, 2025, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to 2 dismiss. (ECF No. 8). Defendants included a Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice 3 containing a Certificate of Amendment from the State of Delaware and a Certificate of 4 Limited Partnership of Lincoln Military Property Management LP. 5 On October 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a revised proposed First Amended Complaint 6 (“FAC”). 7 On October 31, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ FAC. 8 Plaintiffs filed a response on November 24, 2025, and Defendants filed a reply on 9 December 1, 2025. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 Motions to amend are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which, as 12 relevant here, provides that a party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course 13 within twenty-one days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b) but otherwise must 14 obtain either leave of the court or the written consent of the adverse party to amend. Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 15(a); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 16 2003) (citing Fed. Civ. P. 15(a)). 17 The general policy provided by Rule 15(a)(2) that the court should freely give 18 leave “when justice so requires” is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence 19 Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1051 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 20 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, leave should be “freely given” absent 21 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 22 cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing 23 party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. 24 Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dept. 25 of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Amendment under the Federal Rules 26 of Civil Procedure should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the 27 opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.”) (internal 28 quotation omitted). Of these factors, prejudice is the most important. Eminence Capital, 1 LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing 2 prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, a trial court “should be guided by the 4 underlying purpose of Rule 15(a). . . to facilitate decisions on merits, rather than on 5 technicalities or pleadings.” James v. Pillar, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 6 United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979-80 (9th Cir. 1981)). Absent prejudice or strong 7 showing of the other Foman factors, there is a presumption in favor of granting leave to 8 amend. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (internal citation omitted). 9 ANALYSIS 10 A. Leave to Amend 11 Plaintiffs seek leave to amend for two reasons: (1) discovery of additional 12 clarifying information regarding the corporate identity and ownership of “Liberty 13 Housing” and its related entities; and (2) correction of a misnomer in the naming of the 14 corporate entities by adding interrelated corporate defendants. (ECF No. 7 at 7.) 15 Plaintiffs seek to add Lincoln Military Property Management LP, LMH Military Property 16 Management LP, and LMH San Diego Property Management GP Inc. as defendants, 17 alleging these entities owned, maintained, controlled, and managed the property at issue 18 under the brand names “Liberty Military Housing” and “Lincoln Military Housing.” 19 Although Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion for leave to amend, the Court 20 may consider their request in the interest of judicial efficiency. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a 22 party.”). 23 Here, Plaintiffs first learned of the additional related entities when Defendants filed 24 their motion to dismiss on September 4, 2025. (ECF No. 12 at ¶8.) Plaintiffs contend 25 Defendants’ motion referenced these entities in attached documents. (Id.) Plaintiffs then 26 filed a proposed FAC on October 6, 2025, and a revised proposed FAC on October 17, 27 2025, after Defendants’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice revealed the existence 28 of LMH San Diego Property Management GP, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9.) 1 Moreover, Defendants’ own filing supports Plaintiffs’ position that the corporate 2 structure created confusion. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants stated that “Lincoln 3 Military Housing did not change its name to Liberty Housing until October 2021.” (ECF 4 No. 2-1 at 3.) Defendants also acknowledge that the involved corporate entities are 5 separate, although intertwined. (See ECF Nos. 8 at 3-4; Nos. 8-1 at 2, Ex. 6.) The 6 interchangeable use of names by these entities, coupled with the name changes and 7 overlapping corporate structures, demonstrates the difficulty Plaintiffs faced in 8 identifying the proper defendants. 9 Applying the Foman factors, the Court finds no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, 10 or dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility. 1 Plaintiffs sought to amend promptly 11 after learning of the additional entities through Defendants’ own filing. As to 12 prejudice—the most important factor—Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating it 13 and have not done so here. See DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 187. This case remains 14 in its early stages, and permitting amendment will not unduly prejudice Defendants. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file the First 16 Amended Complaint submitted on October 17, 2025. 17 B. Motion to Strike 18 Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 12(f). Because the Court grants leave to amend, the FAC filed on October 17, 20 2025, is properly before the Court. Defendants’ motion to strike is therefore DENIED. 21 C. Motion to Dismiss 22 Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 2) was directed at Plaintiffs’ original 23 complaint. Because the Court grants leave to amend and the FAC supersedes the original 24 complaint as of October 17, 2025, the motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT 25
26 1 Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (“[T]he leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’ Of course, 27 the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of 28 | PREJUDICE AS MOOT. Defendants may file a new motion directed at the operative 2 IFAC. 3 CONCLUSION * || For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. 6 2. Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint 7 shall be served upon the newly named defendants: Lincoln Military Property 8 Management LP, LMH Military Property Management LP, and LMH San Diego ? Property Management GP, Inc. 10 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a summons as to the First Amended Complaint, V1 which shall be served upon the newly named defendants: Lincoln Military Property 12 Management LP, LMH Military Property Management LP, and LMH San Diego 13 Property Management GP, Inc. 14 || 4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE AS MOOT. . 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. lyin, 17 || DATED: January 14, 2026 18 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-