Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21GDCV00283, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00283    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Ross Felix (Felix) brings this action against Medversant Technologies, LLC, a California Limited Company (Medversant) and Matthew Haddad (Haddad). Plaintiff alleges he was employed by Medversant from January of 2014 to April of 2020, when Medversant terminated Felix. Plaintiff alleges that Medversant, with Haddad as the sole manager and CEO, committed numerous labor violations against him and other employees during this time.

On November 23, 2021, Medversant filed a Cross-Complaint against Felix alleging three causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (Uniform Trade Secrets Act); and (3) Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.

Medversant now moves for leave to amend its Cross-Complaint to add an additional cause of action for (4) Breach of Non-Disclosure Agreement, (5) Interference with Prospective Advantage, and (6) Civil recovery of Stolen property Received in Violation of Penal Code § 496. Medversant also seeks to name additional Cross-Defendants Janardh Bantupalli, Oksana Denesiuk, Maria Han, and Tara Gayatri Srinivasan.

Felix has filed no opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A party requesting leave to amend must submit a motion that includes: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings; (2) a statement of which allegations would be deleted by the amendment, and where they are located in the previous pleading; and (3) a statement of what allegations would be added by the amendment, and where they are located in the proposed pleading.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion should also include a declaration 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) why the request was not made earlier.¿ (Id. at Rule 3.1324(b).)

A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed. C.C.P. § 472(a). After the period for amending a pleading without leave of court has passed, the pleading may be amended under C.C.P. § 473(a) and § 576.

The trial court should permit a plaintiff to amend a pleading when doing so is in furtherance of justice and in keeping with the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on their merits.¿ (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 956-966.) While the trial court may deny a motion for leave to amend on grounds that, e.g., the party seeking the amendment has caused unreasonable delay in doing so, it probably abuses its discretion if it denies any such motion in the absence of a finding of prejudice to the opposing side.¿ (See Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 545.)

II.                 MERITS

Medversant attaches a proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint. (Janssen Decl. Exh. A.) Medversant also states the allegations that are proposed to be added concerning the new causes of action, the demand for jury trial, and the prayer for relief. (Mot. p. 2, Jannssen Decl. ¶¶ 12-17.) Medversant states the purpose of this amendment is to incorporate additional allegations that were not known to Medversant prior to discovery. Specifically, Medversant states that it became aware through Felix’s discovery responses that Felix and four other individuals utilized Medversant’s proprietary information in presenting a business plan to investors. (Janssen Decl. ¶¶ 13-16.) Medversant explains that this relief was not requested sooner because they were unable to obtain Felix’s discovery responses until March 7, 2024. (Janssen Decl. ¶ 11.)

The Court finds the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1324(a) and (b) are satisfied. Additionally, as the underlying facts are related to the original Cross-Complaint, allowing Medversant to file the amended Cross-Complaint will increase the likelihood of the case being resolved efficiently on the merits.

Requests to amend initial pleadings are to be liberally considered and Felix has rendered no opposition to the motion.  The Court notes that this case was set for trial in May 2024.   Defense counsel had a trial conflict with a matter in Riverside County, and despite the case being over three years old, the trial was vacated.  The case is now three years and four months old, and as such the Court, in granting the amended cross-complaint anticipates that all parties will exercise due diligence in moving the case toward expedited service and trial.

Accordingly, Medversant’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.  

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Medversant Technologies, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Amend came on regularly for hearing on June 28, 2024 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 16, 2024.

OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT IS SET FOR AUGUST 16, 2024.

MEDVERSANT TO PROVIDE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  June 28, 2024                                    _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles