Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV06689, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06689    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             November 26, 2024

Case Name:                Stage v. Unruly Agency LLC

Case No.:                    22STCV06689

Matter:                        Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Sarah Stage

Opposing Party:          None

            On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff Sarah Stage (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Unruly Agency LLC (Unruly) and its alleged owners, Defendants Tara Niknejad and Nicky Garthrite, for nine causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, infliction of emotional distress, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition.

On February 25, 2022, Unruly and co-defendants filed an Answer denying the allegations. That same date, Unruly filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff Stage for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Unruly alleged that it is a company that “works with models, social media talent and influencers to build their brands and increase their revenue,” and that cross-defendant Stage is such an “influencer.” Unruly alleged that Stage retained it to “generate growth for her social media platforms, specifically, Stage’s OnlyFans account.” Unruly avers that under their contract, Stage was to pay Unruly a percentage of monthly revenue from her OnlyFans account. Unruly alleges that, at some unspecified time, Stage stopped paying for its services. Unruly further alleges that Stage “attempted to assert pressure by contacting other Unruly models, broadcasting false claims, in an effort to persuade them to leave their contract too and cause Unruly to surrender their claim against Stage.” (Capitalization removed.) The Cross-complaint includes purported screen shots of text messages between Stage and representatives of Unruly, including photographs, reflecting the parties’ agreement to add more risqué material on her social media platform.

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff Stage filed a motion to strike the first, second, and fifth causes of action of Unruly’s Cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. On April 19, 2022, the Court denied this anti-SLAPP motion. Thereafter, the Court stayed Stage’s demurrer to the Unruly’s Cross-Complaint and stayed Unruly’s motion for attorney fees on the grounds that there was a pending appeal on the Court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion.

Then, on October 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. No opposition was filed.

The motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit 3 is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)

Legal Standard

            The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend based on a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same case. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Thus, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 [“instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare.”].)  Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)

A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to add “class action” claims for the violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment causes of action. Specifically, the moving papers contend that Plaintiff only recently discovered the facts – the determination by the Labor Commission that the Agreement underlying the Complaint was illegal and void -- prompting this amendment. (Dowlatshahi Decl., ¶ 7.)

There is no opposition to this motion; as such, there is no argument contending prejudice or undue delay would result from allowing this amendment. Nor is there any argument that this motion does not otherwise comply with any procedural or substantive requirements for amendment under the Code of Civil Procedure or Rules of Court.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, the Court grants leave to Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to serve and file the First Amended Complaint on or before December 4, 2024.