Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 25STCV08243, Date: 2025-06-10 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.

Case Number: 25STCV08243    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant Edward Yang (“Edward”)[1]

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Herbert Yang (“Herbert”)

            The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply has been filed. Any reply was required to have been filed by June 3, 2025. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b) [reply must be filed at five court days prior to the hearing].)

BACKGROUND

            This is an action for partition of real property located at 1629 Brockton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025 and 1557 Midvale, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Herbert sues Edward and Does 1 through 15, inclusive, pursuant to a March 21, 2025, complaint for partition (the “Complaint”).

            On April 18, 2025, Edward filed a cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) against Herbert, Jonilyn Blandy, Aespace America, Inc. and Roes 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) fraud; (2) forgery; (3) grand theft; (4) conspiracy; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) accounting; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (8) declaratory relief.

 On May 14, 2025, Edward filed a motion for leave to file a second amended answer (the “Motion to Amend Answer”). On May 15, 2025, Herbert filed a notice of non-opposition.

On May 20, 2025, Edward filed a motion for leave to file a second amended Cross-Complaint (the “Motion to Amend Cross-Complaint”). On May 23, 2025, Herbert filed an opposition to the Cross-Complaint Motion (the “Opposition”).             

DISCUSSION

             A party may file an amended pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed as long as it is served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), §§ 472 subd. (a), 430.40 subd. (a).) Outside that timeframe, a party must obtain leave of the court to amend its pleading. (CCP, § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  

The court may grant leave to amend a pleading, in its discretion, “upon any terms as may be just,” if it finds that permitting the amendment would be “in furtherance of justice,” and that the adverse party was noticed. (CCP, § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  The court may grant leave to amend at any stage of the proceeding, even “after commencement of trial.” (CCP, § 576; see Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) 

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading 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 subd. (a).) 

A separate declaration must also accompany the motion and must specify: (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 subd. (b).) 

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Answer

            Edward has satisfied the requirements of Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a). (Mot. to Amend Answer, p. 2:7-13; Yang Decl.) Edward has filed a copy of the proposed second amended answer. (see 5/14/2025 Second Amended Answer.) The minimal proposed amendment “corrects clerical errors in the Eighth Affirmative Defense (Unclean Hands), paragraph 14, to properly reflect the documents and service dates provided to Plaintiff.” (Mot. to Amend Answer, p. 1:21-23.) Herbert does not oppose filing the amended answer. (see 5/15/2025 Notice of Non-Opposition.)

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Cross-Complaint

            Edward has satisfied the requirements of Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a). (Mot. to Amend Cross-Compl., p. 2:16-27; Yang Decl.) Edward has filed a copy of the proposed pleading (see 5/20/2025 Amended Cross-Complaint (2nd).) The proposed amendments include additional facts in the background allegations section, new causes of action for conversion and unjust enrichment and make minor revisions to the sixth and tenth causes of action as well as the prayer for relief. (Mot. to Amend Cross-Compl., p. 2:20-27; Yang Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.)

            Herbert argues that the Motion to Amend the Cross-Complaint should be denied because on April 25, 2025, Edward, a licensed attorney, sent an email to Herbert’s counsel threatening to file a criminal complaint against Herbert if Herbert did not accept Edward’s settlement demands by May 1, 2025. (Opp., Ex. 3.) Herbert argues that this communication constitutes extortion and supports a defense of unclean hands, thus precluding Edward from prevailing in this action. (Opp., pp. 3:18-7:4.) The Court agrees that this communication is troubling, unethical and potentially sanctionable. It is not clear, however, that the email provides a basis for the Court to deny the instant Motion to Amend the Cross-Complaint. The Court strongly cautions Edward against any further uncivil conduct, as continued incivility may warrant sanctions or other appropriate consequences.

The Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Answer and the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Cross-Complaint are GRANTED. Edward is ordered to electronically file the Second Amended Answer and the Second Amended Cross-Complaint within 10 days of this order.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

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.

Dated this 10th day of June 2025