Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV08297, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08297    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 17

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

WARING PLAZA PROPERTIES, L.P.

 

         vs.

 

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, et al.

 

 Case No.:  23STCV08297 

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  January 8, 2025

 

 

Waring’s motion for leave to amend to file an SAC is GRANTED.

 

On 4/14/2023, Plaintiff Waring Plaza Properties, L.P. (Waring) filed suit against Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and Benjamin G. Shatz. On 5/6/2024, Plainiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; and (3) common counts.

 

            On 7/5/2023, Cross-Complainant Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP filed a cross-complaint (XC) against Waring Plaza Properties, L.P., alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) open book account; and (3) quantum meruit; and (4) breach of implied-in-fact contract.

 

            Now, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Waring Plaza Properties L.P. (Waring) seeks leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC).

 

Discussion

 

            Waring seeks leave to amend to add a new cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and remove two causes of action from the first amended complaint (FAC) that are moot because the court sustained defendants Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (Manatt) and Benjamin G. Shatz’s demurrer to those two causes of action. The proposed SAC does not contain any new facts. The only addition is a new legal theory that seeks restitution of fees Waring paid Defendants in the same amount as the damages alleged under the FAC.

 

The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

 

Here, trial is more than nine months away. No depositions have been taken. Only basic written discovery has been exchanged, and Waring has no additional information to provide Defendants regarding the new claim. As such, Defendants have not identified any meaningful prejudice it would suffer if leave to amend were granted.

 

Based on the foregoing, Waring’s motion for leave to amend to file an SAC is granted.

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated:  January    , 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.