Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV01293, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01293    Hearing Date: May 20, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 1:10 PM on May 19, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on May 19, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email.  The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have marketed unauthorized health insurance plans and insurance, as purported health care sharing ministry (“HCSM”) plans, to Californians, but refused to pay for any member’s medical costs.

Plaintiff The People of the State of California moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. 

TENTATIVE RULING           

Plaintiff The People of the State of California’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed to be served as of the date of this order.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff The People of the State of California moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

“Leave to amend is in general required to be liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of limitations concern. Leave to amend may be denied if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Citation omitted.)”  (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402.)  Where an additional theory of liability is proposed against an existing defendant, this is not prejudice which would justify the denial of leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. See also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.' [Citation.]" (Citation omitted.)) 

Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) states:

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

   (Cal. Rules of Court, 3.1324(b).) 

            Plaintiff has identified the changes to be made at Page 1:11 – 13 of the notice of motion, and in the redlined copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff indicates that these changes are sought primarily to add information that addresses concerns that the Court expressed in its March 4, 2025 order. (Declaration of Ari Dybnis, ¶ 4.) More specifically, Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint to add allegations of specific statutory provisions that serve as the predicates for plaintiffs Business & Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. claims, add additional details about a defendant’s conduct, remove allegations relating to former defendants, correct the name of a defendant in the caption, and add a request for the remedy of disgorgement. (Dybnis Decl., ¶ 2.)

Generally, even where an additional theory of liability is proposed against an existing defendant, this is not prejudice which would justify the denial of leave to amend.  (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.' [Citation.]" [Citation omitted].) There is no trial date set, so there does not appear to be any prejudice. Nor did Defendants file an opposition demonstrating such.

            As such, the motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed to be served as of the date of this order.