Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

zhenya he,

Plaintiff,

YING CHEN; COLE HARRIS; JONATHAN MEYERS aka JONATHAN MERYERS; HIN KU; YOU FAN CAO, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 23AHCV00325

Hearing Date: January 4, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’S motion for leave to amend the complaint

Procedural Background

On February 13, 2023, Plaintiff Zhenya He (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant quiet title action against Defendant Ying Chen, Cole Harris, Jonathan Meyers aka Jonathn Meryers, Hin Ku, and You Fan Cao (collectively “Defendants”). On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants. The FAC asserts two causes of action for (1) Conversion and (2) Quiet Title.

On September 27, 2023, the instant action was deemed related to Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV09634 (“Lead Action”) and reassigned to the current department.

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the instant action. On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of errata. On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second notice of errata for the instant motion. On December 4, 2023, Defendant Cole Harris (“Harris”) filed an opposition. On December 5, 2023, the Court advanced the instant motion to January 4, 2024. (Minute Order 12/5/23.) On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 473, subdivision (a)(1) states: “[t]he 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.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 576 states that: “[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, and therefore, courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. Rule 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: “(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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Discussion

Pursuant to the second errata to the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to include additional Defendants, additional causes of action, and more factual allegations to support these additions. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add Sinora Chan, Maggie Ly Sien aka Maggie Chan, Real Estate Elite Corporation, West Coast Escrow Co, and Chicago Title Co as Defendants. (2^nd Errata Exh. A.) Plaintiff also seeks to pursue nine causes of action for (1) Quiet Title, (2) Declaratory Relief, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Slander of Title, (5) Conversion, (6) Fraud, (7) Civil Remedy under Penal Code § 496(c), (8) Cancellation of Deed, and (9) Unjust Enrichment/Constructive Trust. (2^nd Errata Exh. A.) The first errata identifies the specific changes made between the FAC and the proposed second amended complaint. (1^st Errata, Appendix.) The second errata to the instant motion includes the specific changes made between the first errata and second errata.

Plaintiff discovered the facts giving rise to the need for these amendments after receiving subpoenaed documents on May 17, 2023. (Mascheroni Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s Counsel at the time conferred with Defendants’ Counsel regarding proposed amendments to the complaint. However, Plaintiff’s then Counsel uncovered the Lead Action and discovered that Plaintiff had been defaulted in the Lead Action. (Mascheroni Decl. ¶ 6.) Because the Lead Action involves many issues that could have a collateral effect against Plaintiff in the instant action, Plaintiff’s Prior Counsel sought to set aside the default in the Lead Action but due to health issues had to travel out of the country, and Plaintiff’s Current Counsel assumed responsibility for the case. (Mascheroni Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Defense Counsel for Defendants Hin Ku and You Fan Cao agreed to stipulate to the filing of the proposed Second Amended Complaint, but on November 14, 2023 Counsel for Defendant Harris refused to do so, prompting the need for the instant motion. (Mascheroni Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.)

In opposition, Defendant Harris claims that there has been significant delay in bringing the instant motion. While there may have been some delay in bringing the instant motion to amend the complaint, “trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding[.]” (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488–489.) Moreover, to justify a denial of a motion for leave to amend, the delay must have caused prejudice to the adverse parties. (See Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147, [“[W]here there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.”].) Here, there is no prejudice to Defendants. Though there have been many changes, the instant action is still in early proceedings, and the claim against Defendants are still made on the same general underlying facts. Moreover, other than generally claiming unspecified prejudice, Defendant Harris fails to identify any specific prejudice that would be caused by the proposed second amended complaint.

Similarly, to the extent that the proposed second amended complaint is deficient, Defendants can challenge such deficiency in a demurrer or motion for summary judgment. In general, there is no requirement that a critical inquiry be made into the merits of the amendment on a request for leave to amend. (See Ruiz v. Santa Barbara Gas & Elec. Co. (1912) 164 Cal. 188, 196 [ “The usual and orderly way to test the sufficiency of an amended complaint is, in the first instance, by demurrer, after the same has been filed, when the questions presented in regard thereto may be considered and determined, and leave given to the pleader to amend if the pleading be held insufficient and the court deem it proper that the party should have such leave.”].)

The Court finds that no prejudice would arise from the amendments, and thus, it would be an abuse of discretion to deny the instant motion. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

Conclusion and ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Zhenya He’s motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint within five (5) days of notice of this order.

All parties are ordered to appear for a Case Management Conference on February 29, 2024 at 8:30 am.

Moving Party is to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: January ___, 2024 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court