Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21PSCV00891, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00891 Hearing Date: April 11, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Cultiva Group v. Andrew’s Son Trading, Inc., et al.
Motion for Leave to Amend Cross-Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court DENIES the motion for leave to amend cross-complaint.
Cross-Defendants are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. On November 1, 2021, plaintiff Cultiva Group (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Andrew’s Son Trading, Inc. (Andrew’s Son Trading), Jiazheng Lu aka Andrew Lu (Lu), and Does 1 through 50 (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on August 17, 2022, alleging causes of action against the same Defendants for breach of written contract, common counts, open book account, fraud, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair business practices.
On May 27, 2022, Andrew’s Son Trading filed the operative cross-complaint against cross-defendants Cultiva Group, Colin Lin, Peng Li (collectively, Cross-Defendants), and Roes 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, quantum meruit, and unfair business practices.
On March 4, 2024, Andrew’s Son Trading (Andrew’s) moved for leave to amend the cross-complaint. On March 20, 2024, Cross-Defendants opposed the motion. On April 4, 2024, Andrew’s replied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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).)
“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)
Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)
DISCUSSION
Summary of Arguments
Andrew’s seeks to amend the cross-complaint to add Lu as a cross-complainant and to add three causes of action for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress to be brought by Lu. Andrew’s contends it was recently discovered at Andrew’s deposition in December 2023 that there was an incident involving Cross-Defendants and Lu wherein Lu was forcibly detained for an extended period of time. Andrew’s contends it is necessary to add Lu as an additional cross-complainant to this action, as these matters involve the same parties and arise out of the same transaction or occurrences as alleged in the cross-complaint. Andrew’s contends the liberal policy favoring leave to amend favors granting the motion, and there is no prejudice to Cross-Defendants because no trial date is set and discovery is still ongoing. Andrew’s also contends amendment will help have all of these issues resolved in a single proceeding.
In opposition, Cross-Defendants argue that the December 2023 deposition was not the first time these issues regarding the alleged forcible detainer were addressed, as Defendant Lu provided information about this incident in discovery responses back in August 2022, and was therefore aware of this for the past year and a half. Cross-Defendants contend permitting amendment will prejudice Cross-Defendants
Analysis
“[W]hen an amended complaint seeks to add new plaintiffs and claims, the court's discretion is tightly confined by considerations of due process -- that is, potential unfairness to the defendant -- and the running of the applicable statute of limitations.” (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 862, 873.) Amendment of a pleading generally is not permitted where an additional party plaintiff seeks to enforce an independent right after the statute of limitations has run. (Pasadena Hospital Assn., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1037 fn. 4.)
The Court finds Andrew’s motion is not well taken. First, Andrew’s current causes of action are for breach of contract and business related torts. The proposed causes of action are Lu’s claims based on harms to his person, i.e., false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Motion, 5:16-19.) Lu’s proposed causes of action are therefore independent from Andrew’s claims. (See Pasadena Hospital Assn., Ltd., supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at p. 1037 fn. 4.) Hence, Andrew’s seeks to amend its cross-complaint to enforce an independent right of an independent party. The Court also notes that Lu is not a party to the motion and has not filed a separate motion for leave to file his own cross-complaint; although the result would not change because of the statute of limitations issue.
Second, Lu’s proposed causes of action would be time-barred. (See Bartalo v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 526, 533-534 [injured spouse not entitled to amend complaint to add other spouse and allege loss of consortium claim after expiration of statute of limitations].) The statute of limitations for false imprisonment is one year. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (c).) The statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress are both two years. (Id., § 335.1; Roman v. County of Los Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316, 323; Pugliese v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1450.) The incident upon which Lu bases his proposed causes of action allegedly occurred on August 20, 2021. (Cheng Decl., Ex. A, ¶¶ 18, 58, 74.) It has been more than two years since the alleged incident in question. Thus, Lu’s proposed causes of action would be time-barred and his claim cannot relate back, for purposes of satisfying the statute of limitations. (See Dominguez v. City of Alhambra (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 237, 241-243.
Third, Andrew’s explanation for the delay in seeking amendment is unpersuasive since Lu was the party being deposed here. (Cheng Decl., ¶ 3.) This case has been pending since November 2021 and the cross-complaint filed in May 2022. Lu certainly knew about the facts underlying these incidents at the time they occurred and took no action to pursue his claims in over 2 1/2 years. Andrew’s declaration fails to provide any explanation as to why Lu did not seek to assert his claims earlier. Indeed, the claims Andrew’s seeks to add belong to Lu not Andrew’s and Lu has offered no explanation for the delay.
Finally, Cross-Defendants and Plaintiff will be prejudiced by these amendments. The Court is ready to set a trial date and is set to do so at the Trial Setting Conference on April 11, 2024, which is also the date of the hearing of this motion. Written discovery has been completed, Lu’s deposition has been taken, and the parties already participated in private mediation. Additional discovery will be necessary to explore Lu’s tort claims, while this action has been focused on a business dispute. (Berger Decl., ¶¶ 11, 12.) The trial would be delayed if the amended Cross-Complaint were allowed.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion for leave to amend cross-complaint.
Cross-Defendants are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.