Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV34405, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34405    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. 

            On 10/26/2022, Plaintiff Dr. Devinder Kumar, M.D. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Mark Waecker and Mark Waecker APC (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) constructive trust; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) injunctive relief.

            On 4/29/2025, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC).

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks leave to amend on the grounds that “subsequent to filing the Complaint, evidence revealed that the Plaintiff was inadvertently misnamed, and that the evidence of the cases established an additional cause of action for Conversion for which Plaintiffs were entitled to recover.” (Motion, 1:26-2:1).

            Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the fact that a summary judgment motion is already pending is not dispositive here.

            In the context of summary judgment motions, requests for leave to amend are "routinely and liberally granted." (Kirby v. Albert D. Seeno Constr. Co. (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1069.) Amendments after summary judgment motions have been filed are particularly appropriate where such amendments "are intended to repair complaints that are legally insufficient, in other words, those that would be subject to a motion for judgment on the pleadings." (See College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719, fn. 5.)

            Here, Plaintiff argues that “[d]uring the course of researching the law on this case counsel learned that because attorney liens are payable out of the client’s recovery, an attorney who does not honor valid liens payable to another attorney is not only guilty of conversion and acts of moral turpitude but also violates rule 4-100. The facts having already been alleged, Plaintiffs are entitled to present the legal theory most properly defining them, and therefore this Amendment is requested.” (Motion, 3: 27- 4: 3.)

            However, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion does not abide by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b), as it does not state by page, paragraph, and line numbers what is requested to be added or deleted. More importantly, the declaration does not contain any facts to support when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered or the reasons why the request was not made earlier.

While amendments are liberally permitted, generally, “[t]he law is also clear that even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may - of itself - be a valid reason for denial.” (Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 686, 692) (“There is a platoon of authority to the effect that a long unexcused delay is sufficient to uphold a trial judge’s decision to deny the opportunity to amend pleadings.”)

Here, discovery closed three months ago and the parties submitted their pretrial papers, such as exhibit and witness lists, exhibits and trial briefs, for the original trial date of 3/17/2025. Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment or adjudication based on the existing Complaint and Dr. Kumar as the Plaintiff. Adding a new claim and a new Plaintiff would require Defendants to conduct discovery and bring a new summary judgment motion. The cases Plaintiff cites do not involve pending summary judgment motions based on evidence where trial has already been continued once. This is especially true where, as here, Plaintiff has not offered any adequate explanation as why he waited 2.5 years to move to name the correct Plaintiff and add a new cause of action for conversion. As such, taken together, the Court finds that leave to amend would severely prejudice Defendant, such that good cause does not exist to grant leave.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.