Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV00816, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00816    Hearing Date: August 25, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Lilly Darvish initiated this action on January 7, 2022. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on February 16, 2023 against Defendants Michael K. Lanning, Michael K. Lanning, a Professional Law Corporation, and Allen Brumer. The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) legal malpractice, (2) accounting malpractice, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) fraudulent concealment, and (5) financial elder abuse.

Defendant Lanning and his law firm represented Plaintiff for over thirty years in connection with estate planning. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendants also began representing Plaintiff’s son, Shervin. Defendants did not disclose this conflict of interest and allegedly colluded with Shervin to help Shervin obtain Plaintiff’s shares in the family business, Annex. Defendants allegedly failed to properly advise Plaintiff with regards to the sale and failed to protect Plaintiff’s interests. Defendants allegedly failed to prepare a proper accounting in connection with the sale of Annex assets and helped hide the transactions from Plaintiff.  

Defendant Brumer was allegedly part of this scheme. Brumer is a certified public accountant who allegedly performed accounting and tax services for Plaintiff. (SAC ¶ 4.) Brummer represented Plaintiff before the Franchise Tax Board, resulting in over $800,000 in taxes and penalties. (Id., ¶ 44.) Brummer allegedly “conspire[ed] with Shervin and Lanning to hide important and significant financial information from [Plaintiff] so that Shervin could misappropriate [Plaintiff’s] community property assets.” (Id., ¶ 66.)

Plaintiff has since settled with Defendants Michael K. Lanning and Michael K. Lanning, APC. Brumer remains a defendant. Plaintiff presently seeks to add Brumer’s company, Alan Brumer APC, as a defendant. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint on July 27, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.) In determining the extent of prejudice to the opposing party, the court must consider various factors, such as whether the amendment would delay trial or increase the discovery burden. (Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 306.)

DISCUSSION

            It is unclear whether Defendants have been properly served with the motion, as there is no proof of service attached to the motion, nor has Plaintiff separately filed a proof of service. The motion will be granted if Plaintiff can demonstrate proper service, and the motion remains unopposed.