Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV00697, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00697    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: I

The court’s prior tentative remains its thinking.  Plaintiff is now arguing that defendant led plaintiff down the garden path to invest significant time and effort to develop a line of swimwear.  After the line was given to defendant, so the allegation goes, defendant jettisoned plaintiff and gave the swimwear designs to another company and defendant and the other company are now exploiting that work.  However, that argument was made by way of an opposition brief; it is not in the complaint.  Further, the argument in opposition is devoid of any real support.  Given the number of times that plaintiff has tried to articulate a viable theory, the court needs more than speculation.  The court gave plaintiff a period of time to bring a motion to amend to add this theory and enough factual allegations to take it beyond mere guess-work.  That time has not yet expired.  As such, the Walker motion remains premature.  But it is time for plaintiff to fish or cut bait.  If it has some real reason to believe that defendant did what was claimed in the brief, then it must move to amend and allege the facts that would so demonstrate.  If not, then the Walker motion has legs because all that remains is the value of the few specific items of swimwear, which cannot possibly exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this court.