Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV08034, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08034    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 27

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

PAVLO FILIPOV,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

CJAN EXPRESS; KENNETH YOUNG KIM, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV08034

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 30, 2023

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Pavlo Filipov (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Cjan Express, Inc. and Kenneth Yong Kim (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

          On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff substituted DOE 1 for Estate of Kenneth Yong Kim.

On December 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) based on the passing of Defendant Kenneth Yong Kim. On January 17, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition, but agree that the complaint should be amended to add the Sun Young Kim as the administrator of Decedent.  On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed their reply.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

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 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. 

III.     DISCUSSION

          The requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code §452.)

The Court finds the procedural requirements of CRC 3.1324 have been met. Plaintiff seeks to amend his pleading to add the administrator of deceased Kenneth Yong Kim’s estate.  Defendants agree.  A stipulation should have been reached in this matter obviating this motion.

          The motion is GRANTED to amend the complaint to name Sun Young Kim as special administrator of decedent’s estate.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

 

Dated this 30th day of January 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court