Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV24865, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24865    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce Iwasaki 

Department 58 

Hearing Date:             September 30, 2024     

Case Name:                 Cald Holdings, LLC v. Richard Madokoro 

Case No.:                    22STCV24865

Motion:                       Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and to Continue Trial  

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Cald Holdings

Tentative Ruling:      Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Background

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff Cald Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Richard Madokoro, Steve Najera, Abel Aureliano Galvez Carrillo, and Anastasia Prakharenka, alleging ten causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) fraud; (5) conspiracy to commit fraud; (6) conversion; (7) conspiracy to commit conversion; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) professional negligence; and (10) violation of California Business and Professional Code § 17200 et. seq.

Defendant Najera then filed an Answer on December 19, 2022, and a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and all other Defendants the following day. Defendant Najera is the only defendant to appear in this action. Plaintiff then began discovery, and the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses against Defendant Najera on March 22, 2024. On September 17, 2024, Plaintiff made an oral motion to continue trial at the parties’ Trial Readiness Conference, which the court denied.

On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking leave to amend its Complaint and to continue trial. Defendant Najera filed a Non-Opposition to the motion on September 24, 2024.

Discussion

I.               Leave to Amend Complaint

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296–297; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)  Morgan vs. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 543, held that “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend...” It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing parties are not misled or prejudiced by the amendment (i.e., by delay).  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)  

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: (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) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Here, Plaintiff’s motion contains a list of the proposed changes and is accompanied by the proposed First Amended Complaint, serially numbered, and a declaration in support of the motion from Plaintiff’s counsel. The motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Court 3.1324. Furthermore, Defendant Najera, the only defendant to appear in this action, filed a non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint on September 24, 2024.

Having reviewed this testimony and evidence, and in light of judicial policy favoring liberal allowance of amendments, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

II.             Order to Continue Trial

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)¿ 

Plaintiff argues that a continuance is necessary due to Plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint to add new defendants and new cause of actions. (Motion to Amend Complaint and Continue Trial, p. 7.) Plaintiff argues that it needs more time to effect service on the addition defendants and conduct discovery pertaining to the new defendants and causes of action. (Motion to Amend Complaint and Continue Trial, p. 8.)

The addition of a new party, if the new party or others have not had reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery regarding the new party’s involvement may indicate good cause for continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In this case, Plaintiff seeks to add three additional defendants, asserting a cause of action for aiding and abetting against them and Defendant Najera. (Motion to Amend Complaint and Continue Trial, p. 2–3.) Plaintiff also seeks to remove Defendant Najera from three other causes of action.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for a continuance based on the addition of new defendants and causes of action. Plaintiff only identified grounds for adding defendants and an additional cause of action during Defendant Najera’s deposition on August 18, 2024, and through a third party subpoena to his bank. (Declaration of Nicolas W. Spingner, ¶ 9.) Furthermore, Plaintiff served Request for Admission, Set 2, on Defendant Najera on November 7, 2023. (Motion to Compel Responses, p. 4.) These admissions sought to confirm details about the aforementioned bank account. (Motion to Compel Responses, p. 4.) However, Defendant Najera did not adequately respond, and this court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses on March 22, 2024. Plaintiff has shown reasonable diligence in obtaining information to identify new parties and causes of action.

Additionally, Plaintiff waited until after its Mandatory Settlement Conference with Defendant Najera on September 13, 2024 to seek an amendment and continuance, in hopes it would reach a mutually agreeable settlement at the conference. (Declaration of Nicolas W. Spingner, ¶ 23.) After the parties failed to do so, it promptly filed this motion.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for a continuance of trial. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

Conclusion

            The court grants Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial date and will set the date at the hearing.