Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00887, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV00887 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: April 8, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: No date set.
CASE: MENGDAN SUN, an
individual, v. SHUAI DENG, an individual; IRN REALTY, a California corporation;
HARVARD ESCROW COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive.
CASE NO.: 23AHCV00887
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mengdan Sun
RESPONDING PARTY: No
response filed.
SERVICE: Filed February 29, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves for leave to file
a second amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Mengdan
Sun’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she was the victim of fraud related to an EB5
investment scheme and the sale of her real property. Plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint on August 31, 2023, alleging six causes of action for (1)
fraud – sale of the property, (2) fraud – EB5 application, (3) conversion –
sale of the property, (4) conversion – EB5 application, (5) breach of fiduciary
duty, and (6) negligence.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is
DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides in
relevant 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.” Trial courts have discretion to permit amendments, which
should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments to promote the judicial
policy to resolve all disputed matters in one lawsuit. (Kittredge
Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045,
1047. “But this policy applies only [w]here no prejudice is shown to
the adverse party.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007)
151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175, quotation marks omitted.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
moves for leave to file a second amended complaint.
California
Rules of Court Rule 3.1324 (“Rule 3.1324”), subdivision (a), provides:
“A motion to amend a pleading before trial 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.
Rule 3.1324
subdivision (b), requires a motion to amend a pleading to include a declaration
that provides: “[¶] (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.”
Plaintiff
attaches a proposed second amended complaint, Exhibit A, with her motion and a
red-lined copy showing all of the proposed changes, Exhibit B. However, Plaintiff
fails to include any declaration complying with the requirements of Rule
3.1324, subdivision (b).
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED
without prejudice.
Moving
Party to give notice.
Dated: April 8, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org