Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV08311, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV08311 Hearing Date: May 15, 2025 Dept: 28
Having
considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Dohana Pantaleon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants 99 Cents Only Stores (“99 Cents”), Shandong Glassware (“Shandong”), and Does 1-20 for general negligence, products liability, and premises liability.
On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Zibo Ocean Far Light Industry Products Co., Ltd as Doe 1 and Zibo Ocean Far Light Industry Products Co., Ltd as Doe 2.
On June 2, 2020, 99 Cents filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Shandong and Joes 1-50 for breach of contract, express indemnity, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On October 4, 2021, 99 Cents amended the cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendants Zibo OceanFar Light Industry Products Co., Ltd as Joes 1 and Zibo OceanFar International Trade Co., Ltd as Joes 2. On March 14, 2023, 99 Cents amended the cross-complaint to add Cross-Defendant Shandong Jusheng Glass Product Company Limited as Joes 3. On May 25, 2022, Cross-Defendants Zibo Oceanfar International Trade Co., Ltd. and Zibo Oceanfar Light Industry Products Co., Ltd filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On August 16, 2022, Shandong filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On August 2, 2022, Defendants Zibo Oceanfar International Trade Co., Ltd. and Zibo Oceanfar Light Industry Products Co., Ltd. filed an answer to the complaint. On November 14, 2022, Shandong filed an answer to the complaint.
On April 12, 2024, 99 Cents filed a notice of stay of proceedings based on its filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. On April 15, 2024, 99 Cents filed an amended notice of stay of proceedings. On April 15, 2024, the Court stayed the case against 99 Cents.
On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Order Approving Stipulation Regarding Limited Relief From the Automatic Stay to Continue Pending Litigation. The notice attached (1) an October 23, 2024 order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware modifying the automatic stay “as set forth in the Stipulation” and (2) a stipulation permitting Plaintiff “to (a) continue to prosecute the State Court Action against 99 Cents to final judgment or disposition as to 99 Cents as a nominal defendant only, and any non-debtor defendants and (b) to execute, levy, and collect upon any judgment rendered against 99 Cents in the State Court Action from non-debtor defendants, non-debtor sources, indemnification obligations of non-debtors, insurance carriers, and the proceeds of applicable insurance policies only, and not from Debtors, their estates, or their successors.” The stipulation also provided that the state court action could proceed against 99 Cents (and the automatic stay would be lifted for that purpose) only if 99 Cents was not required to make further appearances in, defend, or otherwise incur any costs in connection with the state court action.
On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff, 99 Cents, Shandong, and Defendants and Cross Defendants Zibo Oceanfar International Trade Co., Ltd. and Zibo Oceanfar Light Industry Products Co., Ltd. filed a stipulation to extend the time to bring the case to trial to February 27, 2026. On March 14, 2025, the Court granted the stipulation and extended the time to bring the case to trial to February 27, 2026.
On May 6, 2025, the clerk entered Cross-Defendant Shandong Jusheng Glass Product Company Limited’s default.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 13, 2026.
B. This motion
On April 16, 2025, 99 Cents filed a motion for leave to amend its cross-complaint. The motion was set for hearing on May 15, 2025. No opposition has been filed.
PARTY’S REQUEST
99 Cents asks the Court for leave to amend its cross-complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)
“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.)
“ ‘While a motion to permit an amendment to a pleading to be filed is one addressed to the discretion of the court, the exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. [Citations.] And it is a rare case in which “a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” [Citations.] If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]’ ” (Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 1024, 1031, quoting Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
“[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 (Kittredge).) “Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 6:656, p. 6-193 (Cal. Practice Guide).)
“Ordinarily, the judge will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. . . . After leave to amend is granted, the opposing party will have the opportunity to attack the validity of the amended pleading.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:644, pp. 6-189 to 6-190.)
DISCUSSION
99 Cents asks for leave to amend its cross-complaint to assert claims against Cross-Defendants based on an alter-ego and/or single enterprise theory, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. According to 99 Cents, the new claims are based on evidence its counsel discovered on April 8, 2025 as well as Cross-Defendants’ discovery responses. (Motion pp. 3-4.)
99 Cents contends that amendment of the cross-complaint will not prejudice Cross-Defendants because (1) the new claims are “related and not substantially different than the ones already alleged, rather it is closer to a change in legal theory based on evidence discovered” (Motion p. 4), (2) the new claims are “based on new evidence, and the complaint merely alleges additional legal theories for the same liability against Cross-Defendants” (Motion p. 4), (3) “[t]he anticipated scope of discovery would be substantially the similar, and would not substantially elongate litigation” (Motion p. 4), (4) “[i]t is anticipated that one more full set of written discovery would be issued to each Cross-Defendant, and a person most qualified deposition would be set for each Cross-Defendant” (Motion p. 4).
The Court has received no information showing that the proposed amendments will prejudice the Cross-Defendants. The Court therefore grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.