Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 21CMCV00184, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

“INSTRUCTIONS:
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other
parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the
tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties
will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all
parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is
called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its
tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then
no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may
either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

Case Number: 21CMCV00184    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       BACKGROUND

             Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Al Fakher Distribution USA, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges they sold and delivered hookah tobacco products to Defendant and Cross-Complainant Saharan, Inc. (“Saharan, Inc.”) who failed to pay for the products delivered. (Complaint (“Compl.”), ¶¶ 6, 9, 11, 12.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gahandi Kareem Haddadin (“Haddadin”) used Saharan, Inc. as a shell for their own personal dealings. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Saharan, Inc. owes at least $815,724.00 for products delivered by Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Saharan, Inc. subsequently brought a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging breach of implied covenants, interference with economic advantage, and unfair business practices after Plaintiff allegedly stopped supplying Saharan, Inc. and instead began selling directly to Saharan, Inc.’s customers. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 10.)

II.       MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

A.    Plaintiff filed the Motion on January 24, 2023.

            Plaintiff states that during discovery, on January 19, 2023, evidence was produced of a check made on July 17, 2021, in the amount of $150,000.00 made from Haddadin to GR Auto Trading. (Motion to File First Amended Complaint, p. 2:12-14.) Plaintiff discovered that Haddadin is the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Director, and Agent for Service of Process for GR Auto Trading. (Motion to File First Amended Complaint, p. 2:8-10.) Plaintiff also discovered two other wire transfers from Haddadin to AG Auto Trading in July of 2021 that totaled $550,000.00. (Motion to File First Amended Complaint, p. 2:5-8.)  As a result of these findings, Plaintiff requests leave to file a first amended complaint to include allegations against AG Auto Trading. Plaintiff submits a copy of the proposed first amended complaint which adds a cause of action for fraudulent transfer against Haddadin, Saharan, Inc., and AG Auto Trading and a cause of action for interference with contract against Haddadin and AG Auto Trading. (Declaration of Mark C. Zebrowski, counsel for Plaintiff, Exhibits A and B.)

//

//

B.     No oppositions filed.

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), an opposition to a motion for leave to file an amended complaint is due nine court days before the hearing. As of February 9, 2023, two court days before the hearing, no oppositions have been filed.

III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

            A plaintiff can amend a pleading as a matter of right “at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472. subd. (a).) If a plaintiff wishes to file an amended pleading at any other time, it is up to the court’s discretion to grant leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The statute is liberally construed to permit amendment of the pleadings “unless an attempt is made to present an entirely different set of facts by way of the amendment.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)

            If the motion is timely made, and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Where denial of the motion will result in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action, “it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.)

IV.       DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff has properly submitted this Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint with the supporting declaration of Mark C. Zebrowski, counsel for Plaintiff, and a copy of the proposed first amended complaint with the changes clearly demonstrated. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; Declaration of Mark C. Zebrowski, Exhibits A and B.) There is a three-year statute of limitations on claims for fraudulent transfers and a two-year statute of limitations on claims for interference with contractual relations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d); Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. (1); PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Internat., Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 170 [221 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 365, 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 170], as modified (Aug. 23, 2017); DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2013) 938 F.Supp.2d 941, 952.)  Plaintiff presents three transfers in July of 2021 which are alleged to be fraudulent and interfere with contractual relationships. Even assuming the statute of limitations began to run on the day of the alleged fraudulent transfers, the claims are still timely.   

            Plaintiff states that no prejudice will result because Haddadin owns and controls both Saharan, Inc. and GR Auto Trading. Plaintiff argues that Haddadin transferred funds to GR Auto Trading in July of 2021 when Haddadin was aware that Saharan, Inc. owed Plaintiff more than $800,000.00. The Court agrees that no prejudice will result from allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and no oppositions to this motion have been filed notifying the court of any prejudice that may result.

            Additionally, the Court finds that denial of this motion would interfere with Plaintiff’s right to assert meritorious causes of action. One of the many purposes of discovery is “to make available, in a simple, convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except with great difficulty….” (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 299 [204 Cal.Rptr. 154, 159, 682 P.2d 349, 354].) It is unlikely Plaintiff would have discovered, and Plaintiff states they had not discovered, the transfers to GR Auto Trading prior to discovery. (Motion to File First Amended Complaint, p. 2:10-12.) Now that Plaintiff has discovered facts which involve the transfer of substantial sums to a company owned by a current defendant during a period of time that Plaintiff alleges Haddadin knew of the debt owed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff should be allowed to pursue additional causes of action demonstrated by those facts.

//

//

            Based on the foregoing, this Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

V.       CONCLUSION

             This Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Dated: February 14, 2023                                           __________________________________

                                                                                                Judge of the Superior Court