Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 21STCV37868 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV37868, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37868 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Sungil Choi’s Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $9,024.15, Terminating Sanctions, Issue Sanctions, and Evidence Sanctions

Moving Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

Resp. Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Eunice Hee Oh’s Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $9,024.15, Terminating Sanctions, Issue Sanctions, and Evidence Sanctions

Moving Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

Resp. Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Degnan SP, Inc.’s Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $9,024.15, Terminating Sanctions, Issue Sanctions, and Evidence Sanctions

Moving Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

Resp. Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Sungil Choi’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions against Paul Sungil Choi and/or Park LLP, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $3,229.15

Moving Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

Resp. Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

SUBJECT: Motion for Protective Order

Moving Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

Resp. Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

SUBJECT: Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint

Moving Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

Resp. Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Eunice Hee Oh’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions Against Eunice Hee Oh and/or Park LLP, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $4,616.65

Moving Party: Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave

Resp. Party: Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc.

The Choi RPDs Motion, Oh RPDs Motion, and DSI RPDs Motion are GRANTED in part. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of the Bordenaves and against Choi, Oh, DSI, and their Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,500.00. The substantive requests for responses to RPDs are DENIED as moot. The requests for evidentiary and terminating sanctions are DENIED. Choi, Oh, and DSI’s Requests for Sanctions in opposition to these motions are DENIED.

The Choi Deposition Motion and Oh Deposition Motion are GRANTED in part. The Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Monetary sanctions are AWARDED in favor of the Bordenaves and against Choi, Oh, DSI, and their Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,250.00. The substantive requests to compel depositions are DENIED as moot. Choi, Oh, and DSI’s Requests for Sanctions regarding these motions are DENIED.

The Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

This case involves various allegations and causes of action surrounding a use of a property, leases entered into regarding the property, and various related issues.

This case, listed as case number 21STCV37868, is a consolidated, lead case that comprises of four Complaints, one Cross-Complaint, and seven Answers. The lead case was originally filed by Hubert Bordenave on October 13, 2021 against Soon N. Yoon, Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc. Lori Bordenave is a party in two of the actions. The Court has already found all four cases to be related. All of the Does and Roes have been dismissed from all of the cases. Soon N. Yoon has been dismissed with prejudice from Hubert Bordenave’s Complaint, and Soon N. Yoon’s Cross-Complaint (filed April 25, 2022) has been dismissed without prejudice.

On March 28, 2023, Hubert Bordenave and Lori Bordenave (“the Bordenaves”) filed:

(1) Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Sungil Choi’s Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $9,024.15, Terminating Sanctions, Issue Sanctions, and Evidence Sanctions (“Choi RPDs Motion”);

(2) Motion to Compel Defendant Eunice Hee Oh’s Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $9,024.15, Terminating Sanctions, Issue Sanctions, and Evidence Sanctions (“Oh RPDs Motion”); and

(3) Motion to Compel Defendant Degnan SP, Inc.’s Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $9,024.15, Terminating Sanctions, Issue Sanctions, and Evidence Sanctions (“DSI RPDs Motion”);

They concurrently filed the following with each of these motions:

(1) Declaration of Raffi Kassabian;

(2) Separate Statement; and

(3) Proposed Order.

They also filed one Proof of Service for all the motions.

On April 3, 2023, the Bordenaves filed their Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Sungil Choi’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions against Paul Sungil Choi and/or Park LLP, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $3,229.15 (“Choi Deposition Motion”). They concurrently filed:

(1) Declaration of Raffi Kassabian;

(2) Proposed Order; and

(3) Proof of Service.

On April 4, 2023, Paul Sungil Choi, Eunice Hee Oh, and Degnan SP, Inc. (“Choi, Oh, and DSI”) filed their Motion for Protective Order. They concurrently filed their Proposed Order.

On April 6, 2023, Hubert Bordenave (without Lori Bordenave) filed his Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint. He concurrently filed:

(1) Declaration of Raffi Kassabian;

(2) Proposed Order; and

(3) Proof of Service.

On April 10, 2023, the Bordenaves filed their Motion to Compel Defendant Eunice Hee Oh’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions Against Eunice Hee Oh and/or Park LLP, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $4,616.65 (“Oh Deposition Motion”). They concurrently filed:

(1) Declaration of Raffi Kassabian;

(2) Proposed Order; and

(3) Proof of Service.

On April 11, 2023, Choi, Oh, and DSI filed their Omnibus Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (“Omnibus Opposition”). The Omnibus Opposition includes a Request for Sanctions.

On April 13, 2023, Choi, Oh, and DSI filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Paul Sungil Choi (“Opposition to Choi Deposition”). The Opposition to Choi Deposition includes a Request for Sanctions.

On April 17, 2023, the Bordenaves filed:

(1) Reply in Support of Motion to Compel [Defendants’] Compliance of Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Request for Sanctions (“Omnibus Reply”);

(2) Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Request for Sanctions Against Defendants and/or Park LLP, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $2,600 (“Opposition to Protective Order”);

They concurrently filed with each of these:

(1) Declaration of Raffi Kassabian; and

(2) Proof of Service.

On April 17, 2023, Choi, Oh, and DSI filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Complaint (“Opposition to Supplement”).

On April 19, 2023, the Bordenaves filed their Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Defendant Paul Sungil Choi’s Attendance at Deposition (“Reply re Choi Deposition”). They concurrently filed their Proof of Service.

On April 19, 2023, the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Bordenaves to Choi, Oh, and DSI’s causes of action for breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court denied summary adjudication to their cause of action for violation of Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances section 2.68.320.

On April 21, 2023, Choi, Oh, and DSI filed:

(1) Reply to Opposition to Motion for Protective Orders (“Reply re Protective Order”); and

(2) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Eunice Hee Oh and Request for Sanction (“Opposition to Oh Deposition”).

On April 21, 2023, the Bordenaves filed their Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint (“Reply re Supplement”). They concurrently filed their Proof of Service.

On April 26, 2023, the Bordenaves filed their Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Defendant Eunice Hee Oh’s Attendance at Deposition (“Reply re Oh Deposition”). They concurrently filed their Proof of Service.

ANALYSIS:

For clarity and ease of analysis, the Court begins by considering the six discovery-related motions together. The Court then separately considers the Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint.

I. The Discovery-Related Motions

A. Legal Standard

1. Legal Standard for Requests for Production

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

2. Legal Standard for Depositions

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)¿¿¿

¿¿

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)¿

The motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).) “Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Insp. Serv. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.)¿

“If a motion under subdivision (a) [of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450] is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (h).)

B. Discussion

1. Sanctions are the Only Issues Left

The Parties agree that the substantive issues regarding all of the discovery motions are moot. Specifically, the Bordenaves have been served with a production of documents requested, and the depositions of Choi and Oh have either been scheduled or already occurred.

The Parties further agree that the only outstanding issue with the discovery motions is the issue of sanctions.

The Court thus only considers the discovery motions regarding the issue of sanctions.

2. The Sanctions Requested

The Bordenaves request the following monetary sanctions:

(1) $9,024.15 for the Choi RPDs Motion;

(2) $9,024.15 for the Oh RPDs Motion;

(3) $9,024.15 for the DSI RPDs Motion;

(4) $3,229.15 for the Choi Deposition Motion;

(5) $4,616.65 for the Oh Deposition Motion; and

(6) $2,600.00 for the Opposition to Motion for Protective Order.

The Bordenaves also requested evidentiary and terminating sanctions regarding the three RPDs motions.

(Choi RPDs Motion, p. 11:11–13; Oh RPDs Motion, p. 11:11–13; DSI RPDs Motion, p. 11:11–13; Choi Deposition Motion, p. 10:6–8; Oh Deposition Motion, p. 10:20–22; Opposition to Motion for Protective Order, p. 14:1–3.)

Choi, Oh, and DSI request the following monetary sanctions:

(1) $4,500.00 for the Omnibus Opposition;

(2) $1,750.00 for the Opposition to Choi Deposition;

(3) $1,750.00 for the Reply re Motion for Protective Order; and

(4) $1,750.00 for the Opposition to Oh Deposition.

Choi, Oh, and DSI did not initially request monetary sanctions for their Motion for Protective Order. However, they requested monetary sanctions in their Reply re Protective Order, which are listed above.

(Omnibus Opposition, Decl. Rios, ¶ 17; Opposition to Choi Deposition, p. 8:4–6; Reply re Motion for Protective Order, p. 8:7–9; Opposition to Oh Deposition, p. 9:4–6.

3. Discussion of Sanctions

a. RPDs Sanctions

On January 26, 2023, the Bordenaves served Choi, Oh, and DSI with set two of their RPDs. (Decl. Kassabian re RPDs Motions, ¶ 3 and Exh. 1.) Choi, Oh, and DSI argue that they submitted responses to the discovery request on March 24, 2023. (Omnibus Opposition, p. 5:24–25 and Decl. Rios, ¶ 4.) The response took longer than the 30 days allowed.

The Parties engaged in Informal Discovery Conferences (IDCs) on March 13, 2023 and March 22, 2023. However, IDCs are just that: informal. The Court did not issue orders following the IDCs.

Choi, Oh, and DSI have (1) submitted responses to the RPDs and (2) did not violate a Court order regarding the RPDs. Thus, it would not be appropriate to issue evidentiary or terminating sanctions at this time.

However, Choi, Oh, and DSI failed to serve a timely response to the RPDs. The Bordenaves are the prevailing parties on this issue, and the Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Choi, Oh, and DSI. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Similarly, it is appropriate to deny Choi, Oh, and DSI’s Request for Sanctions.

It is not uncommon for courts to compare opposing counsel’s fees to help determine whether the moving party’s fees are reasonable. That is because a “comparative analysis of each side’s respective litigation costs may be a useful check on the reasonableness of any fee request.”¿¿(Mountjoy v. Bank of Am., N.A.¿(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 273, 281, quoting¿Donahue v. Donahue¿(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272.)¿“[T]here is one particularly good indicator of how much time is necessary [for the purpose of determining reasonableness of attorneys’ fees] . . . and that is how much time the other side’s lawyers spent . . . [S]uch a comparison is a useful guide in evaluating the appropriateness of time claimed. If the time claimed by the prevailing party is of a substantially greater magnitude than what the other side spent, that often indicates that too much time is claimed. Litigation has something of the tennis game, something of war, to it; if one side hits the ball, or shoots heavy artillery, the other side necessarily spends time hitting the ball or shooting heavy artillery back.” (Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed¿(9th¿Cir. 2004) 388 F.3d 1281, 1287.)¿

Here, the Bordenaves requested $9,024.15 for each of the three RPDs motions. The Court questions that each of three discovery motions would have required the exact same amount of time – down to the penny. But the Court need not decide that issue. Choi, Oh, and DSI requested $4,500.00 in total for these motions. Thus, Defendants apparently agree that it is reasonable to have attorney's fees of at least $4,500.00 for these motions.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions in favor of the Bordenaves and against Choi, Oh, DSI, and their Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,500.00.

b. Deposition Sanctions

The Bordenaves served Choi with deposition notices on October 28, 2022; December 14, 2022; March 15, 2023; and March 31, 2023. (Choi Deposition Motion, p. 1:20–24.)

Similarly, the Bordenaves served Oh with deposition notice on October 28, 2022; March 15, 2023; and April 3, 2023. (Oh Deposition Motion, p. 1:19–22.)

Choi, Oh, and DSI claim: (1) that the Parties’ Counsel agreed to schedule all of the Parties’ depositions after the Mandatory Settlement Conference on March 30, 2023; (2) that Hubert Bordenave’s deposition was scheduled for April 12, 2023, which is after the discovery cut-off date; (3) that Choi’s deposition was scheduled for March 31, 2023, and Oh’s and DSI’s depositions were scheduled for April 3, 2023; but (4) that the Bordenave’s Counsel reneged on the deposition agreement. (Motion for Protective Order, pp. 5:5–6, 5:16–17, 6:5, 6:9–10; see also Opposition to Choi Deposition, pp. 4–5 and Opposition to Oh Deposition, pp. 4–5.)

Because the depositions are currently scheduled or have already occurred, the question of whether to compel the depositions is moot. However, the Court agrees with the notion that it is unreasonable to make party deponents available more than five months after the original deposition date and less than one month before the scheduled trial date. (It is worth noting that on February 27, 2023 — before any of these motions were filed — the trial date was set for May 1, 2023.)

The Bordenaves are the prevailing parties on this issue, and the Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate Choi, Oh, and DSI acted with substantial justification of that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1) and 2025.420, subd. (h).) Similarly, it is appropriate to deny Choi, Oh, and DSI’s Requests for Sanctions.

Here, the Bordenaves requested a total of $10,445.80 in monetary sanctions, which is comprised of: (1) $3,229.15 for the Choi Deposition Motion; (2) $4,616.65 for the Oh Deposition Motion; and (3) $2,600.00 for the Opposition to Motion for Protective Order.

In contrast, Choi, Oh, and DSI requested $5,250.00 in total for these three motions, which is comprised of $1,750.00 requested for each motion.

Thus, Defendants apparently agree that it is reasonable to have attorney's fees of at least $5,250.00 for these motions.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions in favor of the Bordenaves and against Choi, Oh, DSI, and their Counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,250.00.

C. Conclusion

II. Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint

A. Legal Standard

“The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 464, subd. (a).)

“It is the general policy that courts should exercise liberality in permitting the filing of supplemental pleadings when the alleged ‘occurring-after’ facts are pertinent to the case. Nonetheless, the motion to file a supplemental pleading is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court . . . .” (Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647, citations omitted (affirming denial of motion to supplemental on the basis that the supplement to the complaint sought to introduce new causes of action).)

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).)

B. Discussion

1. The Parties’ Arguments

Hubert Bordenave moves the Court to for leave to file his Supplemental Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 464, subdivision (a). He argues that this would be appropriate because: (1) the proposed Supplemental Complaint only adds allegations that have occurred since the filing of the Complaint; (2) these allegations only came to light a week prior to the filing of the Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint; (3) these allegations are very relevant to the cause of action for elder abuse; (4) Choi, Oh, and DSI will not be prejudiced or surprised by these allegations; (5) the ends of justice require that these facts be considered here; and (6) permitting this filing will avoid repetitious litigation and promote the efficient administration of justice. (Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint, p. 8:16-27, 9:1–21.)

Choi, Oh, and DSI oppose the motion, arguing: (1) that according to their lease agreement, they are entitled to remain in possession of the premises; and (2) that they have a right to answer, demurrer, or file an anti-SLAPP motion to the supplemental allegations. (Opposition to Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint, pp. 3:3–4, 4:4–5.) In support of their second argument, they cite California Rules of Court, rule 5.74(a)(4) and Craiglow v. Williams (1920) 45 Cal.App. 514.

In their Reply, Hubert Bordenave reiterates his arguments, as well as arguing: (1) that the citation to the rule 5.74 is irrelevant and inapplicable here; and (2) that Craiglow is not authority for denying the motion. (Reply re Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint, p. 6:20–22.)

2. Rules of Court

The Court agrees with Hubert Bordenave’s argument that California Rules of Court, rule 5.74(a)(4) is inapplicable here. That rule binds the family court, not the civil court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.2(c).)

The filings do not clarify if supplemental pleadings must follow the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. The Court did not find support for such a proposition in case law, and the plain language of rule 3.1324 indicates that it only applies to amendments, not supplements. However, this is not a determinative issue because Declaration of Raffi Kassabian to the Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint has followed the requirements of rule 3.1324 by: (1) noting the exact additions; (2) noting where those additions are located; (3) provided a copy of the proposed supplemental pleading; (4) explained the effect of the amendments; (5) explained why the amendment is necessary and proper; (6) explained when the facts were discovered; and (7) and explained why the amendment was not made earlier. (Decl. Kassabian, ¶¶ 4–8 and Exh. A.)

3. Craiglow and Related Issues

The Court agrees with Hubert Bordenave’s argument that the opinion in Craiglow does not provide any support for denying this motion. Craiglow stands for the proposition that the Court must still consider an original complaint and answer when the Court has sustained a demurrer to a supplemental complaint. (Craiglow, supra, at 517.) But it does not say anything about when a supplemental pleading should be denied.

Furthermore, the Court disagrees with Choi, Oh, and DSI’s argument that any grant of the motion gives them the right to file an answer, demurrer, or anti-SLAPP motion. Again, Craiglow at most stands for what the Court must do when a supplemental pleading is sustained on demurrer, not what the Court must do when leave is granted for a supplemental pleading.

Choi, Oh and DSI state that “[s]hould the Court choose to grant the current motion, [they] intend to file a Demurrer or Anti-Slapp Motion.” (Opposition to Motion to Supplement Complaint, p. 4:15–16.) This statement is speculative, it has not been fully briefed, and thus is not ripe for the Court to adjudicate. The Court need not, and does not, reach the question of whether Choi, Oh, and DSI may file an answer, demurrer, or anti-SLAPP motion in response to any supplemental pleading without first obtaining leave to do so. (See, e.g., CCP § 464(a).) The Court does note that, on February 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff a trial preference under Civil Code §36 due to his age and health.

4. Prejudice

Upon review of the proposed Supplemental Complaint, the Court notes that the only additions are allegations, not new causes of action or items that occurred prior to the filing of the original Complaint. Furthermore, it does not appear that there would any prejudice to Choi, Oh, and DSI by granting leave for this supplement because these allegations are based on information that should be readily available to them.

The Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint.

C. Conclusion

The Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint is GRANTED.