Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV05551, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 24STCV05551 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: August 14, 2024
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Westside Valley Venture, LLC
Responding
Party: Defendant
James Chewen Chang
Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
The Court
considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The
motion is CONTINUED to
April 9, 2025, at 8:30 AM, Dept. 45, Stanley Mosk
Courthouse.
Background
On
March 5, 2024, Plaintiff Westside Valley Venture, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this
breach of contract action against the following defendants:
1.
Sun Yuen Liu, individually and as
the beneficial owner of Sun Yuen Liu IRA Services, Custodian FBO: Sun Yuen Liu,
IRA;
2.
James Chewen Chang, individually
and as the beneficial owner of James Chewen Chang Defined Benefit Plan and
Trust;
3.
Kelly Hui Wang, individually and as
the beneficial owner of IRA Services, Trust Company, Custodian FBO: Kelly Hui
Wang, IRA;
4.
Does 1 through 10, inclusive; and
5.
All persons unknown, claiming any
legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property
described in the Complaint.
The Complaint
asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) specific performance, (3)
quiet title, (4) declaratory relief, (5) declaratory relief, (6) interference
with contractual relations, and (7) partition.
Plaintiff alleges the following. On or
about December 28, 2023, Defendant Sun Yuen Liu signed a written “Purchase and
Sale Agreement” for the sale of his interest in a vacant real property in Los
Angeles, California (the “Property”) the Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 10.) At the time
Plaintiff and Sun Yuen Liu signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Sun Yuen
Liu’s interest in the Property was worth $65,000. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff
signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement on or about January 2, 2024, and
performed its duties under the agreement. (Compl., ¶¶ 10, 13.) However, Sun
Yuen Liu has failed to convey the title of the Property to Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶
13.) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, “a declaration of the
respective right between Plaintiff and the named Defendants that Plaintiff is a
bona fide purchaser in fee of the 50% interest of SUN YUEN LIU in the Property,
that it owns in fee of the 50% interest in the Property, and that Plaintiff has
a superior title on the Property against the named Defendants.” (Compl., ¶ 42.)
On May 17, 2024,
Defendant James Chewen Chang (“Chang”), individually and as the beneficial
owner of James Chewen Chang Defined Benefit Plan and Trust, filed three things.
First, Chang
filed his Answer to the Complaint.
Second, Chang
filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, Sun Yuen Liu, and Roes 1 to 10,
inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) specific performance, (2) breach
of contract (Count I), (3) breach of contract (Count II), (4) fraud, and (5)
declaratory relief.
Third, Chang filed
a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP
motion”).
In the anti-SLAPP
motion, Chang argues “that the Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional
Interference with Contractual Relations in the complaint arises out of
defendant CHANG’s exercise of the right to free speech and to petition under
the State and Federal Constitutions, and it is not probable that plaintiff will
prevail on the claim.” (Notice of Anti-SLAPP Motion, p. 2:1-4.)
On June 5, 2024,
Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file first amended complaint. Plaintiff’s
proposed first amended complaint seeks to, among other things, delete all six
(6) causes of action in the original Complaint, and only assert causes of
action for (1) declaratory relief and (2) quiet title. (Motion for Leave,
Declaration of William W. Steckbauer, 2, Exhibit 1 – a copy of the proposed
first amended complaint.)
On July 18,
2024, Chang filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that the motion
should be heard simultaneously with the anti-SLAPP motion because, according to
case law, Plaintiff cannot avoid a ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion by amending
the Complaint. (Opposition, p. 5:3-17.)
On
July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed its reply.
Discussion
“The court may …, 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).)
However, “a plaintiff whose
complaint is stricken by a successful anti-SLAPP motion cannot try again with
an amended complaint.” (Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 655,
676.)
Here, in its reply, Plaintiff argues
that it is not seeking to plead around the sixth cause of action (the claim
that Chang is challenging in his anti-SLAPP motion) but instead file a first
amended complaint that does not have that claim at all. (Reply in support of
Motion for Leave, pp. 5:8-10, 6:14-7:7.)
However, the court will still need
to rule on the anti-SLAPP motion because (1) the anti-SLAPP motion was filed
first, (2) the anti-SLAPP motion is still on-calendar, and (3) there is no
evidence (e.g., a filed joint stipulation) showing that the parties have agreed
to let Plaintiff dismiss its sixth cause of action with prejudice. That being
the case, the court finds it proper to grant Chang’s request to continue the
hearing on the motion for leave to amend to be heard the same day as the
anti-SLAPP motion.
Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to
File First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to April 9,
2025, at 8:30 AM, Dept. 45, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The Special Motion to
Strike shall be heard first, followed by the Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may move to shorten the time for the hearings if
such relief is available.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: August 14, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court