Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: BC640352, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC640352    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jeremy Daniels-Stock (“Cross-Complainant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants Christopher Mitchell, Koi Pond, and Monty Dog (“Cross-Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 10, 2016. The operative Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on October 16, 2020, and alleges 10 causes of action arising from alleged wrongful actions in connection with investments in real estate ventures.

            On December 31, 2018, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants for (1) breach of written contract, (2) declaratory relief for quiet title, (3) accounting, (4) receivership, (5) fraud, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) assault, and (8) involuntary dissolution.

Trial is set for June 3, 2024.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” 

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, such allegations are located.  CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, 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) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Leave to Amend

            Cross-Complainant represents that the effect of the proposed amendment is to: (a) remove the causes of action for Receivership and Involuntary Dissolution; and (b) add evidentiary facts to existing claims. (Grossman Decl., ¶3; Notice of Errata.) Cross-Complainant believes the existing Cross-Complaint is sufficient, but seeks leaves to amend to add in facts and issues which were argued about during several mediations and contained in the mediation briefs. (Grossman Decl., ¶¶4-10.)

As Cross-Defendants point out, the Cross-Complaint was filed seven years ago. Cross-Complainant represents that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations have been known to him for years. (Grossman Decl., ¶5.) A similar ex parte application was denied in July 2023. Cross-Complainant represents that the application was denied because of the proximity of the then-current trial date, but the trial date has since been continued to June 3, 2024. Now, the trial date is a little over two months away and discovery is closed. Cross-Defendants contend the new allegations are not slight modifications to conform the pleading to proof, such as new allegations of fraud which would require further discovery and delay of trial. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Cross-Defendants would be prejudiced by allowing leave to amend this late in the case and this close to trial. 

The Court DENIES the motion for leave to amend.

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 20th day of March 2024