Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01467, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01467    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: C

LEVY v. KERTENIAN

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01467

HEARING:  03/28/24

#1

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the Moving Papers is not deemed filed as of the date of this hearing. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to FILE the Second Amended Complaint by no later than 5 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Moving Party to give notice.

In November 2020, Plaintiff LAUNDRY LOS ANGELES, INC. was vandalized. Defendant Armen Gassyan was arrested at the location and charged with commercial burglary and vandalism. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants MAGIC LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC. and HRAIR KERTENIAN conspired with Armen Gassyan to destroy Plaintiffs’ laundry, a competitor of the defendants.   

This action was filed on December 1, 2022. The initial Complaint contained eight causes of action for: Trespass to Land; Trespass to Chattels; Conversion; Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; Interference with Contractual Relations; Alter Ego Theory; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on March 21, 2023, as of right. The First Amended Complaint omits the initially asserted fourth through eighth causes of action, and contains only three causes of action for: Trespass to Land; Trespass to Chattels; and Conversion.  

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that re-asserts the five causes of action that were omitted in the First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he Motion is made on the grounds that since the filing of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have discovered new relevant facts and evidence necessitating the amendment and supplementation of the information contained in the First Amended Complaint as well as the correction of certain mistakes and the pleading of additional causes of action, which were previously removed due to the status of facts and evidence at the time in the infancy of this matter.” (Notice 2:7-12.)

In Opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied because Plaintiffs have not complied with the CRC requirements for this Motion; the causes of action are either time-barred or fail to state legally cognizable claims; and because Plaintiffs fail to provide any evidence to support the new claims and causes of action contained in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

The Court does not find that the Motion is procedurally defective. The Motion adequately complies with the requirements set forth by CRC Rule 3.1324. Plaintiffs adequately attach a copy of the proposed pleading, and Plaintiffs’ counsel explains why the causes of action are being re-asserted. Therefore, the Court will rule on the merits.

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘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.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, 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.” (emphasis added.) (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

In light of the liberality associated with granting motions for leave to amend up to and including the time of trial, the Court finds that Plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to make the proposed amendments. Defendants maintain their right to compel discovery, demur, move for judgment on the pleadings, move to strike, or move for summary judgment.

The Motion is GRANTED.