Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00239, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00239    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Jiacheng Yang

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Yiran Zhang

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Jiacheng Yang filed this action on April 26, 2022 against Defendant Yiran Zhang, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of oral contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) specific performance, and (4) declaratory relief. The gravamen of the complaint is a dispute between ex-romantic partners over payments for the lease of a car, a Mazda CX-30.

            On May 20, 2022, Defendant filed a cross-complaint for (1) sexual battery, (2) battery, (3) assault, (4) domestic violence, (5) fraud – intentional misrepresentation, and (6) forgery. Defendant alleges that during her romantic relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff sexually assaulted and battered her on more than one occasion and that he was verbally abusive. The couple terminated their relationship in or around November 2020, but Plaintiff continued to harass and stalk Defendant, causing her emotional distress. In November 2021, Defendant was involved in an accident while driving the Mazda. Defendant discovered that Plaintiff had purchased a liability-only insurance policy for the car in Defendant’s name. As a result, Defendant paid out-of-pocket for various expenses relating to the car accident.

            Plaintiff now moves for leave to file an amended complaint to add new factual allegations as well as causes of action for equitable indemnity, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation per se, and defamation per quod.

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. Whether the amendments are sufficient to state a cause of action is more appropriately left to a motion directed to the amended pleading. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) The court also finds that Defendant will not be prejudiced by the amendments. Defendant argues that the amendments are not made in good faith and are instead retaliatory and a sham. “The absence or presence of good faith on the part of the moving party certainly bears on the exercise of the court’s discretion in granting or denying leave to file an amended complaint.” (American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western Transport (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 875, 879.) Plaintiff asserts that the new claims and allegations were the result of “recently discovered new evidence” such as statements made by Defendant in or around April 2022 to a mutual friend that Plaintiff had been “cyber stalking” Defendant. (Mot., p. 4:25-28.) Moreover, the inconsistencies identified by Defendant do not rise to the level of sham pleading because there are no facts being contradicted, just legal theories. Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to allow the amendments and leave to a later day litigation of the merits of the parties’ competing claims.

CONCLUSION

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

The court orders Plaintiff to file and serve the First 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:  August 12, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court