Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV20237, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff, LA Melrose Place No. 49, LLC’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff may file the proposed second amended complaint with the Court.

Defendants, Carolwood Capital Partners, LLC, Andrew Shanfeld, and Adam Rubin’s move to amend their answer.

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint on August 23, 2023. Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on November 29, 2023, alleging five causes of action against Defendants The Prosciutto Project, LLC (“Prosciutto Project”) and Michael Della Femina (“Della Femina”) (collectively, “Named Defendants”): (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) false promise; (4) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (5) inducing breach of contract. (See FAC.) On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed DOE amendments, naming Carolwood Capital Partners, LLC as Doe 11, Andrew Shanfeld as Doe 12, Adam Rubin as Doe 13, and Carolwood LP as Doe 14 (collectively, “Doe Defendants”).

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 21, 2024. Doe Defendants filed their opposition on October 28, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on November 4, 2024.

Defendants, Carolwood Capital Partners, LLC, Andrew Shanfeld, and Adam Rubin’s filed their motion for leave to amend their answer on August 6, 2024. Plaintiff filed a “Response” to the motion on October 21, 2014, suggesting the motion be moot if its motion to amend the complaint was granted. Defendants filed a reply on October 25, 2024.

“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.” (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).)

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’ That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

CRC Rule 3.1321(a) requires that a motion to amend must: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed . . . amended pleading . . . [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located.”

CRC Rule 3.1324(b) provides, as follows: “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) [t]he effect of the amendment; (2) [w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) [w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) [t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed SAC. (Decl. of Dicecca ¶7, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration sets forth the allegations proposed to be added and deleted, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (See Decl. of Dicecca ¶7.) Plaintiff’s counsel also attaches a redlined version of the SAC indicating where changes have been made to Plaintiff’s pleading. (Decl. of Dicecca ¶8, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff’s motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration specifies the effect of the amendments and explains why the amendments are necessary and proper. (See Decl. of Dicecca ¶¶9-11.) Plaintiff’s counsel asserts the amendments are necessary and proper “to allow Plaintiff to resolve all its claims and disputes with Defendants and recover all damages it suffered from Defendants’ wrongful acts related to the subject matter of this action in a single lawsuit.” (Decl. of Dicecca ¶13.)

However, Plaintiff’s counsel fails to state when the facts giving rise to substantive amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. However, the Court can infer from Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that Doe Defendants’ responses to interrogatories, which were served on July 2, 2024, were the source of the facts giving rise to substantive amended allegations and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (See Decl. of Dicecca ¶¶10-11, Exhs. C, D.)

Doe Defendants’ opposition to this motion is unavailing because they fail to demonstrate that the proposed amendment prejudices them. (See Opposition, pgs. 12-13.)

The policy favoring amendment is so strong that denial of leave to amend can rarely be justified: “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its FAC and file the proposed SAC is granted.

In light of this ruling, the Court denies Defendants, Carolwood Capital Partners, LLC, Andrew Shanfeld, and Adam Rubin’s motion to amend their answer as moot.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its Complaint is granted. Plaintiff may file the proposed SAC with the Court. Defendants, Carolwood Capital Partners, LLC, Andrew Shanfeld, and Adam Rubin’s motion to amend their answer is denied as moot.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court