Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV30142, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV30142 Hearing Date: January 31, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
and Supplemental Complaint Against Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc.
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant People of the State
of California Ex Rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
and Supplemental Complaint Against Speedy Fuel, Inc.
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant People of the State
of California Ex Rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Motions for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND:
On
August 10, 2020, Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. California
Air Resources Board filed two Complaints for Civil Penalties and Injunctive
Relief: one against Defendant Noil Energy Group, Inc. (Case Number 20STCV30142)
and another against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. (Case Number 20STCV30292).
On
January 29, 2021, Defendant Noil Energy Group, Inc. filed its Verified Answer.
On
February 16, 2021, Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. filed its Verified Answer.
On
May 6, 2021, Plaintiff amended its Complaint against Defendant Noil Energy
Group, Inc. to substitute Doe 1 with Noil USA, Inc.
On
May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed two new Complaints against Defendants: one
against Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc. (Case Number 21STCV18270)
and the other against Speedy Fuel, Inc. (Case Number 21STCV18251).
On
June 22, 2021, the Court found that the four cases are related and further
found that 20STCV30142 is the lead case.
On
July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.
On
August 10, 2021, Defendants Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc. filed
their Verified Answer to the Complaint in Case Number 21STCV18270.
On
August 11, 2021, Defendants Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc. filed
their Verified Answer to the First Amended Complaint in Case Number
20STCV30142.
On
August 11, 2021, Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. filed its Verified Answer to the
Complaint in Case Number 21STCV18251 and its Verified Answer to First Amended
Complaint in Case Number 20STCV30292.
On
August 18, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil
USA Inc. filed their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants California ex
rel. California Air Resources Board, California Department of Food and
Agriculture, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles Police Officer
Walter McMahon.
On
November 29, 2021, Plaintiffs amended their First Amended Complaint to
substitute Doe 2 with Noil Fontana, LLC.
On
October 18, 2022, by Stipulation of the Parties, the Court ordered the consolidation
of Case Numbers 20STCV30142 and 21STCV18270 and that all subsequently filed
papers shall be filed only in Case Number 20STCV30142, with references to Case
Number 21STCV18270 as a consolidated action.
On
January 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
and Supplemental Complaint against Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc.;
and (2) Motion for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint against
Speedy Fuel, Inc. (“Motions for Leave to Filed Second Amended Complaint”).
Plaintiff concurrently filed Declaration of Gary E. Tavetian and Proposed Order
with each of the motions.
Defendants
have not filed an opposition or other response to the motions.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
The court may, in furtherance of
justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick
v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.)
The court may also, in its
discretion and 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); Branick,
supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.)
“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. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045,
1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute
of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska
(1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The Court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to
amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss
of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)
Under California Rules of Court,
rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (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(a).)
A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why
the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)
II.
Discussion
A.
Rules
of Court
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant complied
with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.
First, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant submitted
a copy of the proposed amended pleading, which is serially numbered as Exhibit
C to the Declarations.
Second, Exhibit D to the
Declarations is a red-lined version of the Second Amended Complaint, which
shows exactly all the items that would be deleted and added, as well as exactly
where those deletions and additions are located.
Finally, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
submitted a separate supporting declaration from Gary E. Tavetian that
describes the effect of the amendment (to make minor additions that discuss
more recent violations), why the amendment is necessary and proper (because the
violations occurred after the filing of the First Amended Complaint), when the
facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (in 2022), and the reason
why the request for amendment was not made earlier (because there matters were
found during discovery).
B.
Prejudice
to Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Defendants/Cross-Complainants
have not opposed the Motion.
While the Court finds that there
would potentially be prejudice to Defendants/Cross-Complainants by
allowing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
to amend its pleading with these
additional allegations, any such prejudice to Defendants/Cross-Complainants appears minimal.
In addition, Defendants have not opposed
this motion. Further, there is no
corresponding request for the reopening of discovery or continuance of Trial,
which is set to begin next month.
The Court finds that there exists
good cause for allowing the amendment.
III.
Conclusion
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Motions for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint are GRANTED.