Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV30353, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30353    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 27, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Ziad Alhassen

Responding Party: None

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

            PLAINTIFF to notice.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

            On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff Ziad Alhassen sued Defendants Tarek Alhassen, Mohammed Tarif Alhassen, and twenty-three business entities, asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, involuntary dissolution and winding up of business entities, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, and accounting. On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, involuntary dissolution, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and accounting. On December 1, 2020, following the demurrer of Defendants Tarek Alhassen and Mohammed Tarif Alhassen, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, asserting thirteen causes of action for declaratory relief, involuntary dissolution, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment and accounting. Plaintiff filed the third amended complaint on May 26, 2021.

This action arises out of several family businesses owned by brothers Ziad, Tarek, and Mohammed Tarif Alhassen. Plaintiff alleges that Tarek and Mohammed Tarif Alhassen conspired to squeeze him out of a newly formed business entity.

ANALYSIS

The Court may allow, in furtherance of justice, and “upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars….”  (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies (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.  (CRC Rule 3.1324(b).)

It is not an abuse of discretion of the court to grant the motion unless there is a “showing that actual unfairness or obvious prejudice has resulted from the allowance of such an amendment”.  (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.)  “Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading.”  (Ibid.)  Absent a showing of prejudice, delay alone is insufficient grounds for denial.  (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 558, 564–65.)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add a claim for treble damages and attorney’s fees under Penal Code § 496(c). Plaintiff asserts that the California Supreme Court in Siry Investment, L.P. v. Saeed Farkhondehpour (2022) 13 Cal.5th 333, 361 recently held that Penal Code § 496 applies when property "has been obtained in any manner constituting theft." Plaintiff represents that the new claims do not add new facts. Plaintiff complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Defendants do not oppose this motion.

The amendment is in the interests of justice. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.