Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 19STCV45806, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action arises out of a dispute over money that Defendants RVCC Intersect, LLC, Reserve Vault, LLC, Christopher L. Adams and Nicolo James Rusconi (collectively, “Defendants”) allegedly owe to Plaintiff Mal Bien Bar, LLC (“Plaintiff”) under a promissory note. The currently operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of promissory note; (2) breach of oral contract; and (3) conversion.

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. No opposition to the motion has been filed.

A “motion for reconsideration” is provided for in section 1008, subdivision (a). A “renewed motion” is provided for in section 1008, subdivision (b). (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43, fn. 11; Tate v. Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 156-157.)

A motion for reconsideration seeks to modify or set aside the court’s previous order. A renewed motion seeks the same relief that was previously denied.

When a motion has been denied in whole or in part, the moving party may apply again for the same relief at a later time only on the following conditions: (1) the motion must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law”; and (2) the motion must be supported by declaration showing the previous order, by which judge it was made, and what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to exist. (CCP § 1008(b); Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 CA3d 965, 969-970.)

Unlike a motion for reconsideration, there is no time limit under § 1008 for the renewal of a previous motion. (CCP § 1008(b),(e); Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car of San Francisco (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 806, 816.) A renewal motion is proper even if the moving party concedes that the court’s initial ruling was correct but claims that it is now erroneous in light of changed circumstances. (Deauville Restaurant, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 843, 848.)¿ Statutory or jurisdictional deadlines attached to the underlying motions, however, remain applicable. (See, e.g., Kunysz v. Sandler (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1543 [motion to renew an anti-SLAPP motion, brought nine months after the first amended complaint was filed, was untimely because it was outside the 60-day statutory period for filing an anti-SLAPP motion].)

Plaintiff renews the motion to amend the complaint, arguing that the Court previously denied the motion for leave to amend because it was filed too close to the November 4, 2024 trial date. Plaintiff contends that, since the trial date has been continued to April 21, 2025, there is now sufficient time, and the motion for leave to amend should therefore be granted. Plaintiff seeks to add 11 new causes of action, which constitutes a substantial amendment. Such an amendment would require Defendants to conduct additional discovery, necessitating more time before trial to complete discovery. If this motion were granted and an amended complaint were allowed to be filed, then a responsive pleading would not be due until January 2025. If demurrers were to be filed, the case might not even be at issue until close to the discovery cut-off.

The complaint in this matter was filed on December 19, 2019 and trial is currently set for April 21, 2025. Under CCP § 583.310, an action must be brought to trial within five years of its filing, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Emergency Rule 10 extended the time to bring a case to trial by six months, such that this matter must be brought to trial by May 3, 2025. As it is, the Court may not be able to start trial as scheduled and will discuss at the time on the hearing of this motion the need to move the trial date forward.

The Court lacks discretion to continue trial beyond the statutory deadline. Allowing these amendments would likely prejudice Defendants, as the additional discovery required could not be accommodated within the remaining time frame, given the Court’s inability to continue the trial date.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court