Klaumenzer et al v. Liberty Military Housing Holdings LLC et al

-1-
25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ERIC KLAUMENZER; SARAH
KLAUMENZER; NATALIE
KLAUMENZER, a minor, through
guardian ad litem; and NIXXON
KLAUMENZER, a minor, through
guardian ad litem,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY MILITARY HOUSING
HOLDING LLC; SAN DIEGO FAMILY
HOUSING LLC, LINCOLN MILITARY
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP; LMH
SAN DIEGO PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT GP INC.; and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 11),
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 9), AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS AS MOOT (ECF NO. 2)
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-02244-BEN-VET Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

-2-
25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are three matters: (1) Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11); (2) Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a First
Amended Complaint (ECF Nos 9, 12); and (3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No.
2). Plaintiffs Sarah and Eric Klaumenzer and their minor children Nixxon and Natalie
Klaumenzer as guardian ad litem bring this action against San Diego Family Housing,
LLC, et al. arising from alleged uninhabitable conditions at a residential property. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike, GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Sarah Klaumenzer, an employee of the United States Navy, and her husband, Eric,
have five children. On June 6, 2020, Sarah Klaumenzer signed a lease for the property
located at 4528 Gainard Way, San Diego, California 92124. In March 2024, Plaintiffs
vacated the property, alleging health concerns stemming from excessive moisture
intrusion, elevated levels of bio-irritants, volatile organic compounds, severe microbial
contamination, mold, and other aerotoxins associated with damp conditions.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed this action is California Superior Court. Defendants removed the
case to this Court on August 28, 2025. On September 4, 2025, Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss, asserting defects in the manner of service and failure to state a claim, along
with a request for judicial notice in support.
On October 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Within that response, Plaintiffs included a request for leave to file an amended complaint
and attached a proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs did not file a separate
motion for leave to amend but instead consolidated their request within their opposition
brief.
Case 3:25-cv-02244-BEN-VET Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

-3-
25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On October 10, 2025, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 8). Defendants included a Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice
containing a Certificate of Amendment from the State of Delaware and a Certificate of
Limited Partnership of Lincoln Military Property Management LP.
On October 17, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a revised proposed First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”).
On October 31, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ FAC.
Plaintiffs filed a response on November 24, 2025, and Defendants filed a reply on
December 1, 2025.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to amend are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which, as
relevant here, provides that a party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course
within twenty-one days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b) but otherwise must
obtain either leave of the court or the written consent of the adverse party to amend. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.
2003) (citing Fed. Civ. P. 15(a)).
The general policy provided by Rule 15(a)(2) that the court should freely give
leave “when justice so requires” is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence
Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1051 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244
F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, leave should be “freely given” absent
“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dept.
of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Amendment under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the
opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.”) (internal
quotation omitted). Of these factors, prejudice is the most important. Eminence Capital,
Case 3:25-cv-02244-BEN-VET Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

-4-
25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing
prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987).
In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, a trial court “should be guided by the
underlying purpose of Rule 15(a). . . to facilitate decisions on merits, rather than on
technicalities or pleadings.” James v. Pillar, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing
United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979-80 (9th Cir. 1981)). Absent prejudice or strong
showing of the other Foman factors, there is a presumption in favor of granting leave to
amend. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052 (internal citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
A. Leave to Amend
Plaintiffs seek leave to amend for two reasons: (1) discovery of additional
clarifying information regarding the corporate identity and ownership of “Liberty
Housing” and its related entities; and (2) correction of a misnomer in the naming of the
corporate entities by adding interrelated corporate defendants. (ECF No. 7 at 7.)
Plaintiffs seek to add Lincoln Military Property Management LP, LMH Military Property
Management LP, and LMH San Diego Property Management GP Inc. as defendants,
alleging these entities owned, maintained, controlled, and managed the property at issue
under the brand names “Liberty Military Housing” and “Lincoln Military Housing.”
Although Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion for leave to amend, the Court
may consider their request in the interest of judicial efficiency. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21
(“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party.”).
Here, Plaintiffs first learned of the additional related entities when Defendants filed
their motion to dismiss on September 4, 2025. (ECF No. 12 at ¶8.) Plaintiffs contend
Defendants’ motion referenced these entities in attached documents. (Id.) Plaintiffs then
filed a proposed FAC on October 6, 2025, and a revised proposed FAC on October 17,
2025, after Defendants’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice revealed the existence
of LMH San Diego Property Management GP, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9.)
Case 3:25-cv-02244-BEN-VET Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

-5-
25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Moreover, Defendants’ own filing supports Plaintiffs’ position that the corporate
structure created confusion. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants stated that “Lincoln
Military Housing did not change its name to Liberty Housing until October 2021.” (ECF
No. 2-1 at 3.) Defendants also acknowledge that the involved corporate entities are
separate, although intertwined. (See ECF Nos. 8 at 3-4; Nos. 8-1 at 2, Ex. 6.) The
interchangeable use of names by these entities, coupled with the name changes and
overlapping corporate structures, demonstrates the difficulty Plaintiffs faced in
identifying the proper defendants.
Applying the Foman factors, the Court finds no evidence of undue delay, bad faith,
or dilatory motive, undue prejudice, or futility. 1 Plaintiffs sought to amend promptly
after learning of the additional entities through Defendants’ own filing. As to
prejudice—the most important factor—Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating it
and have not done so here. See DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 187. This case remains
in its early stages, and permitting amendment will not unduly prejudice Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file the First
Amended Complaint submitted on October 17, 2025.
B. Motion to Strike
Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f). Because the Court grants leave to amend, the FAC filed on October 17,
2025, is properly before the Court. Defendants’ motion to strike is therefore DENIED.
C. Motion to Dismiss
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 2) was directed at Plaintiffs’ original
complaint. Because the Court grants leave to amend and the FAC supersedes the original
complaint as of October 17, 2025, the motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT
1 Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (“[T]he leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’ Of course,
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
discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.”)
Case 3:25-cv-02244-BEN-VET Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

-6-
25-cv-02244-BEN-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PREJUDICE AS MOOT. Defendants may file a new motion directed at the operative
FAC.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint
shall be served upon the newly named defendants: Lincoln Military Property
Management LP, LMH Military Property Management LP, and LMH San Diego
Property Management GP, Inc.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a summons as to the First Amended Complaint,
which shall be served upon the newly named defendants: Lincoln Military Property
Management LP, LMH Military Property Management LP, and LMH San Diego
Property Management GP, Inc.
4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 14, 2026
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02244-BEN-VET Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6