Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV03252, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03252    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff George Rashti

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff George Rashti (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order granting him leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (1) to dismiss individual defendants Andrew Biren and Cameron Yadidi,[1] (2) to add Progressive Insurance and Naddadur Vandhan as defendants, and  (3) to add a cause of action for fraud against defendants George H. Williams and Law Offices of George H. Williams & Associates, Inc. (“Defendants”) and proposed defendants Progressive Insurance and Naddadur Vandhan.  (Mot., p. 15:9-19.)  Plaintiff also requests that the court continue trial for 120 days.

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion because (1) Plaintiff did not file a proof of service establishing that Defendants have been served with this motion; (2) Plaintiff has not shown that it is in furtherance of justice to allow him to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint; and (3) Plaintiff has not shown good cause to continue trial.

First, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that he served Defendants with the pending motion as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 because Plaintiff did not file (1) a proof of service showing that the moving and supporting papers filed in connection with this motion were served on Defendants, and (2) a proof of service showing that Plaintiff served Defendants with a notice of the court’s November 29, 2023 order granting Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion, such that Defendants have not received notice of the new hearing date on this motion.  (Nov. 29, 2023 Order, p. 2, ¶ 2 [ordering Plaintiff to give notice of the November 29, 2023 order].)

Second, even if Plaintiff had served this motion on Defendants, the court finds that it is not in furtherance of justice to allow Plaintiff to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).)  

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect….The court may likewise, 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….”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., §¿473, subd. (a)(1).)  “Generally, leave to amend should be liberally granted.  However, unwarranted delay justifies denial of leave to amend.”  (Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 728, 739.)  Thus, “this policy [of permitting amendment to complaints at any stage in the proceeding] applies ‘ “only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’ ” ’”  (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) 

The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks to change the theory of this action by alleging the existence of a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff between Defendants and proposed defendants Progressive Insurance and Vandhan Naddadur.  However, Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence showing (1) when he discovered the facts giving rise to the fraud claim against these parties, or (2) that he could not have discovered these facts earlier by exercising due diligence.  (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 175 [“appellate courts are less likely to find an abuse of discretion where . . . the proposed amendment is ‘ “offered after long unexplained delay . . . or where there is a lack of diligence . . . .”’”].)  Moreover, the court finds that Defendants would be unduly prejudiced by Plaintiff’s proposed amendment.  This action was filed on January 27, 2020, and trial is currently scheduled for January 24, 2024.  In order to address the change in pleadings, Defendants (1) may elect to file a demurrer or motion to strike directed to the Third Amended Complaint, and (2) will be required to conduct discovery in order to prepare an adequate defense.  (Miles, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 739 [“Prejudice exists where the proposed amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in added costs of preparation and increased discovery burdens”].)

Thus, the court finds that, because Defendants will be unduly prejudiced by the amendment, and because Plaintiff did not sufficiently support his request for leave to amend, it is not in furtherance of justice to grant Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Miles, supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 739 [“the liberal policy favoring leave to amend ‘applies “ ‘only “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party” ’ ” ’ ”].)

Third, even if Plaintiff had served this motion on Defendants, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to make an affirmative showing of good cause to justify the continuance of trial for 120 days and therefore denies that request.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subd. (c) [“The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance”].) 

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff George Rashti’s motion for leave to file third amended complaint.

            The court orders plaintiff George Rashti to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 8, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court