Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 21-1224066, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

1.    Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint


Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Joseph Renyuan Lee and Chien-Jing Hsiao’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for leave to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), states in part, “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. Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states, “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

“It is well established that ‘California courts “have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” [Citation.] Indeed, “it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his [or her] pleading so that he [or she] may properly present his [or her] case.’ ” [Citation.]’ (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158, 263 Cal.Rptr. 473.) Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. [Citation.]” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

“Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown. However, even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” (P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345; internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)

“Although 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, this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. . . .’ [Citation.] A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown.’ [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048, states, “As Justice Kaufman has noted, even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘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.’ [Citation.]”

Procedural History:

On 6/23/22, the court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiffs to file a declaration which complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a) and (b). (ROA No. 117.)

On 7/13/22, Plaintiff filed a declaration which sufficiently complies with Rule 3.1324(a) and (b).


Plaintiffs seek leave to add an additional defendant, Rong Liu, and to add three additional causes of action for Fraud - Intentional Concealment (Civil Code, § 1572(3)), Fraud - Intentional Misrepresentation (Civil Code, § 1572(1)), and Negligent Misrepresentation/Concealment, against defendant Yu Liu and the proposed additional defendant Rong Liu.

Plaintiffs have shown that leave to amend will not prejudice Defendants.

The case is still in its early stages and no trial date has been set.

Accordingly, leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are to electronically file and serve the Second Amended Complaint within 5 court days of the notice of ruling.

Plaintiffs to give notice

2.    Case Management Conference


Future hearing dates:

No future hearing dates