Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20GDCV00924, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00924    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Corona Medical, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants Anil D. Mall and Silverlakes Management, LLC

Plaintiff Corona Medical Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Corona Medical, Inc. filed this action on October 29, 2020 against Defendants Med Star Hospice Care, Inc. (“Med Star”) and Maria Cecilia Tran (“Tran”). Defendants Anil Donald Mall (“Mall”) and Silverlakes Management, LLC (“Silverlakes”) were substituted for Doe defendants on June 4, 2021.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on August 9, 2021, and asserts causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) open book account, (3) account stated, and (4) unjust enrichment. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that it contracted with Med Star to provide pharmacy services, and that over time, Med Star defaulted on its bills. Plaintiff alleges that Mall and Silverlakes are alter egos of Med Star, and that Mall/Silverlakes used Med Star as a mere shell and instrumentality in order to avoid creditors.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a second amended complaint to add allegations concerning withdrawals, transfers, and payments by Defendants and to add causes of action for fraudulent transfer, imposition of constructive trust, intentional interference with contractual relations, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.”  Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (internal citations omitted).) “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….”  (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.134(b).)

DISCUSSION

The court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the procedural requirements associated with the motion. Although the originally-filed declaration in support of the motion did not contain all of the requisite information, the pertinent information was contained in the motion and in the subsequently-filed (albeit late) declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff contends that it learned of the facts giving rise to the amended allegations during discovery, and specifically, documents produced by Pacific Premier Bank pursuant to a subpoena on July 13, 2022 and July 29, 2022. Plaintiff discovered that a substantial amount of money was withdrawn from Med Star’s bank account and transferred to Mall or Silverlakes or Mall’s wife. The new causes of action relate to these allegations.

The court also finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments. There is sufficient time before the currently scheduled trial date of January 23, 2022 to complete any law and motion related to the new pleading. Based on the nature of the new allegations, it is also unlikely that discovery will be severely or unduly delayed as a result of the new pleading. And, in the alternative, upon a showing of good cause the trial date can be continued as Defendants request and Plaintiff appears not to oppose. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

The court orders Plaintiff to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint within 3 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 14, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court