Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00085, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21TRCV00085 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, September 19, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 5
PROCEEDINGS
Aries Global Logistics, Inc. v. Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC, et al.
21TRCV00085
Aries Global Logistics, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
Aries Global Logistics, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is granted.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 5, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff and Defendant Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC entered into a contract for warehouse storage services on certain shampoo bottles and caps. Defendant failed to pay for the services. Plaintiff placed a lien on the products stored. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Written Contract; 2. Declaratory Relief; 3. Injunctive Relief; 4. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 5. Quantum Meruit; 6. Account Stated.
Motion for Leave to Amend
The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. 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. However, the court 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. Cal. Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.
The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.
Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a): A motion for leave to amend must: “(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.”
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) also requires that the moving party must submit a separate declaration specifying:
“(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.”
Plaintiff moves for leave to amend to add a cause of action for Fraud against Defendant Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC (“VOTS”) and against the principals of VOTS, Ajmal Shehzad and Sofia Shehzad, as individuals. Plaintiff states that newly discovered facts establish that Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce Plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentations to its detriment by continuing to perform with respect to its freight forwarding and warehousing services provided to Defendants.
Here, Plaintiff adequately complied with Rule 3.1324(a). Plaintiff has provided the allegations to be added or deleted by page, paragraph number, and line number. (Motion, pages 8-17.) In addition, Plaintiff submitted a declaration setting forth facts to meet the elements of Rule 3.1324(b)(1) to (4). (Decl., Vasko C. Alexander, ¶¶ 3-7.)
Defendant’s opposition primarily consists of disputing the proposed new cause of action and allegations and/or to contend that the newly proposed cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action. However, the preferable practice is to test the legal sufficiency of the proposed First Amended Complaint with a proper motion or demurrer. See, Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (stating that, in the context of analyzing a motion for leave to amend a pleading, that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.”) Similarly, Defendant’s argument that the allegations are not “necessary and proper” are, again, based on Defendant’s denial of the allegations. The fact that Defendant may deny Plaintiff’s claims is not unusual, but, certainly, cannot be a basis to foreclose a party’s opportunity to assert a claim. A Plaintiff would have great difficulties attempting to obtain legal redress if the right to bring claims could be cut off simply because the other party denied the claims.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained the delay and that Defendant will be prejudiced by the delay. Here, however, Plaintiff has sufficiently explained that the newly proposed allegations and cause of action were not discovered until May 2022, and Plaintiff promptly sought leave to amend as soon as the new facts were discovered. Thus, for purposes of this motion, Plaintiff has adequately explained the delay. In addition, there is no prejudice by the purported delay because the trial date is on May 23, 2023, and there is sufficient time for all parties to conduct discovery as to the newly proposed cause of action.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for order granting leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted.
Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint within 3 days of this date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.