Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV09686, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.



Case Number: 23STCV09686    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

 

 

HEARING DATE:      September 19, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE:  May 12, 2025

                                                          

CASE:                                Liyun Wang v. Qingliang Zhao

 

CASE NO.:                 23STCV09686

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Liyun Wang

 

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

 

 

I.          INTRODUCTION

 

On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff Liyun Wang initiated this action against Defendant Qingliang Zhao a.k.a. Qing Liang Zhao for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Bad Faith Retention of Security Deposit, (3) Conversion, and (4) Unfair Business Practices.  Plaintiff leased a residential property from Defendant pursuant to a lease agreement.  The lease required the payment of a security deposit of $14,000.  In July 2022, Plaintiff vacated the property.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant has improperly retained $12,905 of the security deposit.

 

On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint. 

 

The motion is unopposed.[1]

 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD 

 

            The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)¿ “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.”¿ (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)¿ “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 ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’¿ [Citation].¿ A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.¿ [Citation.]” ¿(Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)¿ 

 

            A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).)¿ The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)¿ 

 

            In ruling on a motion for leave to amend the complaint, the court does not consider the merits of the proposed amendment, because “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.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)¿ While the court may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment is insufficient to state a valid cause of action or defense, such denial is most appropriate where the insufficiency cannot be cured by further amendment—i.e., where the statute of limitations has expired or the insufficiency is established by controlling caselaw. (California casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)¿ 

 

III.       APPLICATION

 

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed first amended complaint to add new causes of action for violation of Penal Code section 496, reformation of contract, and violation of Civil Code section 1632.

 

The motion complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342(a).  Further, as the motion is unopposed, the court finds no prejudice will result if leave is granted to file the amended complaint.

 

IV.       CONCLUSION

 

            The unopposed motion for leave to file the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  The First Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served on this date.  Plaintiff is directed to separately file the First Amended Complaint within five court days of this order.

 

Moving party to give notice. 

 

Dated:   September 19, 2024                                  

 

 

 

 

  Kerry Bensinger

  Judge of the Superior Court

 

 



[1] A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).)