Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV02115, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 24CHCV02115    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: F51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 11/21/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Haikuhe Chichyan (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff to separately file her proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is a contract action in which Plaintiff alleges that in March through September 2022, she entered into contract negotiations with Defendant GK Management Co., Inc., represented by Defendant’s agent Kevin Cimino, for the lease of certain commercial property located at 20801 Devonshire Blvd., Chatsworth, CA 91311. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that the parties finalized their handshake agreement to lease the subject property, but on 4/5/24, Mr. Cimino expressed that “Defendant did not intend to move forward with this lease agreement.” (Id. at ¶ 31.)

On 6/6/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Promissory Estoppel; (3) Specific Performance; and (4) Injunctive Relief. On 7/29/24, Defendant filed its answer.

On 11/21/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a FAC. No opposition has been filed to date. On 3/10/25, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the instant motion.

ANALYSIS

“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) “In a case where such an amendment can be made in furtherance of justice without jeopardizing the rights of an adverse party, it should be allowed. This, of course, assumes that neither the cause of action nor the issues involved therein will be radically changed by the proposed amendment.” (Thomasian v. Superior Court (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 322, 335–336.)

Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court requires a party moving for leave to amend to: “(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(a).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a FAC because “after further investigation, Plaintiff discovered that Kevin Cimino must be added as a defendant in this action due to his intentional and negligent misrepresentations to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s authorized representative, Jack Akop Chichyan.” (Pl.’s Mot. 3:6–9.) “Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are as follows: (1) non-substantive clerical corrections; (2) the addition of a new defendant, Kevin Cimino; (3) the addition of new causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation; and (4) additions to Plaintiff’s prayer for relief based on these new causes of action.” (Id. at 3:17–20.) Plaintiff further lists each proposed amendment to the complaint. (Id. at 6:10–21:25.)

The Court notes the Defendant has failed to file any opposition to the instant motion. Based on the foregoing, and the court’s liberal policy on granting leave to amend, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended complaint with the proposed changes.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff to separately file her proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.