Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Plaintiff Forward Calabasas, Inc. 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant Aaron Mensch 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a financial elder abuse case, in which Defendants Bryan Leishman and Aaron Mensch, both licensed real estate brokers, are alleged to have exerted undue influence and taken advantage of Plaintiff Sherry Winters’s age and vulnerable state in order to appropriate her assets.   

Plaintiff alleges Mensch and Leishman engaged in wrongdoing with regard to two transactions to acquire properties known as the Helms Properties and the Pacific Point Senior Apartments for use for two 1031 exchanges.  Plaintiff alleges that Forward Calabasas (doing business as Keller Williams Realty) is the broker of record for Mensch and is therefore liable for his wrongdoing.   

Forward brought a cross-complaint against Otto Ozen aka Ataman Ozen, the Mogharebi Group and Afagh, Inc. dba 5 Gold Star Realty.  Forward alleges that at the time of the Helms transaction, Mensch worked for Afagh Inc. dba 5 Gold Star Realty, not Forward.  As to the Pacific Point transaction, Forward alleges that Otto Ozen aka Ataman Ozen was the dual real estate agent while Mogharebi Group was the dual broker.  Forward alleges it did not receive any compensation for either transaction, and it had nothing to do with any 1031 exchange that concerned Plaintiffs.    

This hearing is on Forward’s motion for leave to amend its cross-complaint.  Forward seeks leave to add Mensch as a cross-defendant, and to add a claim for “expressed contractual indemnity” against Mensch, based on an Independent Contractor’s Agreement (“ICA”) between Forward and Mensch.  There is no opposition to its motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP § 473(a)(1), provides, in relevant part: “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.”¿ 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a),¿a motion to amend a pleading shall:¿ 

(1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;¿ 

(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and¿ 

(3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.¿¿ 

¿ 

In addition, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b),¿a¿separate declaration¿must accompany the motion and must specify:¿¿ 

(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.¿ 

¿¿ 

The Court’s discretion to grant leave “should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿¿The Court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Forward’s declaration in support of the motion satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Forward identifies the amendments, their effect, and the recently received information that prompted the amendment.  (Leff Decl. ¶¶2-3.) 

Forward’s motion also complies with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324.¿ It includes a copy of the proposed amendment, and it states what allegations are proposed to be added.¿¿¿¿ 

The liberal policy favoring amendment counsels in favor of granting Forward leave to file his amended cross-complaint, particularly where as here there is no opposition to Forward’s motion for leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant Forward Calabasas, Inc.’s motion to amend its cross-complaint and to file a first amended cross-complaint.  Forward is directed to file its proposed first amended cross-complaint today.     

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 8, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court