Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: BC715445, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC715445 Hearing Date: August 12, 2022 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling
Motion
for Leave to Amend
Plaintiffs move for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint. Courts exercise their
discretion “liberally to permit amendment,” and “[t]he 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.) Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend
when (a) the moving party has delayed bringing the proposed amendment; and (b)
the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to an opposing party. (Hirsa
v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)
Permitting plaintiffs to file the fourth amended
complaint is in furtherance of justice. No
defendant opposed this motion or otherwise showed any prejudice resulting from
plaintiffs’ delay in seeking to amend the complaint.
The motion is granted.
Plaintiffs Beluga Capital LLC, Doug Asiello, Sean
Newsom, James Preston, and Scott Preston are ordered to file their
fourth amended complaint forthwith.
Motion to Continue Trial
Plaintiffs move to continue the trial set for
September 21, 2022. Plaintiffs show good
cause to continue the trial.
Good cause
to continue a trial includes “[t]he unavailability of trial counsel because of
death, illness, or other excusable circumstances.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c)(3).) Plaintiff’s counsel
Claire E. Cochran, who is a solo practitioner, has “been receiving ongoing
medical treatment for a condition that affects [her] day-to-day activities”
since May 2022. (Cochran Decl., ¶ 3.) She states, “Recently, my condition has
increased in severity, such that my doctors ordered me to go on ‘Temporary
Emergency Medical Leave’ … effective immediately to a date uncertain and to be
re-evaluated on August 16, 2022.” (Id.,
¶ 4.) Though she may ultimately be available
for the trial itself, Cochran’s illness has interfered with plaintiffs’ trial
preparation and constitutes good cause for a continuance.
Good cause
to continue a trial also includes the addition of a new party if “[t]he new
party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for
trial” or “[t]he other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct
discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the
case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c)(5).) Plaintiffs’ fourth
amended complaint will add a new party, defendant Umami Restaurant Group, LLC
to the action. It and the other parties
will likely need additional discovery and time to prepare for trial.
Of the
numerous defendants, only Saison Dining Group LLC and Saison Hospitality LLC
opposed this motion. They fail to show
that continuing the trial would cause significant prejudice to them. They argue this motion improperly seeks to
reopen discovery. Discovery has not
closed. Though plaintiffs’ counsel said
the discovery cutoff was in 2021 (Cochran Decl., Ex. 17), she was
mistaken.
Code of
Civil Procedure section 599, subdivision (a) provides that, “Notwithstanding
any other law and unless ordered otherwise by a court or otherwise agreed to by
the parties, a continuance or postponement of a trial or arbitration date
extends any deadlines that have not already passed as of March 19, 2020,
applicable to discovery… . The deadlines are extended for the same length of
time as the continuance or postponement of the trial date.” On July 23, 2021, on its own motion, the
court continued the trial from September 29, 2021, to September 21, 2022. The court’s order does not specify that the
continuance did not extend discovery deadlines.
The order therefore did extend discovery deadlines.
The
motion is granted.
The court
hereby continues the final status conference from September 12, 2022, to January
9, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. The court hereby
continues the jury trial from September 21, 2022, to January 25, 2023, at 10:00
a.m.