Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCV01075, Date: 2023-06-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV01075    Hearing Date: June 30, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

WY, LLC v. Century City Mall, Case No. 20SMCV01075

Hearing Date June 30, 2023

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of May 26, 2023 Denial of Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

On May 26, 2023 the court denied plaintiff WY’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint restoring the previously-dismissed cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. WY argued Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905 issued a new rule regarding the applicability of the economic loss rule to a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, justifying restoration of the cause of action. The court denied, as “it would be prejudicial to allow plaintiffs to re-introduce a new cause of action with trial set two weeks away.” 5/26/2023 Minute Order pg. 2.

Trial has been rescheduled to December 4, 2023. WY moves for reconsideration of the order considering this new circumstance. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1008(a) allows a party to move for reconsideration of an order “upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law[.]”

The new trial date is a “new circumstance” under §1008, so the court will consider the substance of the motion.

WY argues trial is five months away, so allowing a new cause of action would not unduly prejudice defendant. Given this fact, and the liberal standard in favor of allowing amendments at any time, plaintiff argues the motion should be granted.

Discovery is closed, and pre-trial motions have been filed. Allowing a new cause of action would require reopening discovery, resulting in undue prejudice. Further, as the court stated in its prior minute order, WY failed to adequately explain its delay in bringing Sheen to the court’s attention. DENIED.