Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00133, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00133    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: SEC

SAADIA SQUARE LLC v. ALL-WAYS PACIFIC, LLC

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00133

HEARING:  09/22/22

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

     I.        Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. 

    II.        Defendants SM LOGISTICS HOLDCO LLC; SM LOGISTICS RIALTO LLC’ SM LOGISTICS MEMBER LLC; and SQUARE MILE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is MOOT.

  III.        Defendants RIALTO MERRILL HOLDINGS LLC; ALL-WAYS PACIFIC, LLC; ALL-WAYS FAR EAST, LLC’ and ALL-WAYS FORWARDING INTERNATIONAL, INC.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is MOOT.

Plaintiff to give Notice

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint

This action was filed on March 5, 2021. A First Amended Complaint was filed on February 9, 2022.

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) because “since the time that the First Amended Complaint was filed… the defendants belatedly produced documents revealing—for the first time—facts, parties, information, and circumstances that necessitate (i) naming additional parties… and (ii) alleging additional facts related to interference with contract and alter ego.” (Mtn. 2:6-10.)

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

The Court finds that the interests of justice would best be served by allowing Plaintiffs the opportunity to adjudicate their claims on the merits. In light of the liberality associated with granting motions for leave to amend, the Court finds that Plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to make the proposed amendments. Defendant(s) maintain their right to demur, move to strike, or move for summary judgment to the new operative complaint.

The Motion is GRANTED.

The Proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Benjamin Leventhal Hicks is not deemed served and filed as of the date of this hearing. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to FILE the Second Amended Complaint by no later than 5 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

The Demurrer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as directed towards the First Amended Complaint are MOOT.