Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV31794, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31794    Hearing Date: June 9, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Haag filed this action against Defendants MK Diamond Products, Inc., Brian Delahaut, and CNA Financial Corporation. The parties have stipulated to Continental Casualty Company substituting in for CNA Financial Corporation. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on May 17, 2024.

The FAC asserts twelve causes of action arising from a settlement agreement reached as part of an employment discrimination action filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he entered the settlement agreement with Defendants MK Diamond and Delahaut. Pursuant to the contract, MK Diamond and Delahaut agreed to pay $93,750 to Plaintiff and $143,750 to Plaintiff’s attorneys in exchange for Plaintiff releasing his claims. MK Diamond and Delahaut had an insurance policy with Defendant CNA Financial, which disbursed the funds. MK Diamond and Delahaut thereafter issued a check to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the check bounced and that Defendants failed to reissue a check or otherwise make payment despite giving assurances. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have so far only paid him $16,000.

On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendant Delahaut filed his opposition on May 27, 2025. Plaintiff filed his reply on June 2, 2025.  

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(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.)

A motion for leave to amend a complaint must be accompanied by a declaration that explains: (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 Ct., Rule 3.1324(b).)

DISCUSSION

            The proposed SAC removes the first, second, seventh, eighth, ninth, and eleventh causes of action to conform to the Court’s prior orders. The proposed SAC also adds a cause of action for conversion. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration pursuant to Rule 3.1324(b). (See Plazak Decl.)

Plaintiff has alleged from the outset that Delahaut absconded with his money, and the complaint already contains a claim for restitution. The proposed conversion claim is substantially similar and arises from the same facts. Thus, the prejudice to Defendants is minimal. The current trial date of August 26, 2025 should provide the parties with sufficient time to address the new claim, and the parties may move for a trial continuance should more time be needed.   

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.