Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV08365, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV08365    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Defendants Keiko Hasegawa and Philip Sentoso, as personal representatives of the Estates of Mulyadi Tirto Susielo Sentoso     

(1)   Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Defendants Keiko Hasegawa and Philip Sentoso, as personal representatives of the Estates of Mulyadi Tirto Susielo Sentoso

(2)   Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment and Trial

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the motion for leave to file first amended complaint.  The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with the ex parte application, and the parties’ October 14, 2022 stipulation on Plaintiff’s ex parte application.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On March 3, 2021, plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Keiko Hasegawa and Philip Sentoso, as personal representatives of the Estate of Mulyadi Tirto Susielo Sentoso (“Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts two causes of action for (1) breach of written contract and (2) common counts.

Plaintiff moves the court for an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint to (1) make various stylistic edits, (2) add allegations regarding the existence of consideration in support of the subject promissory notes, and (3) add a third cause of action against defendant Keiko Hasegawa, in her individual capacity, for the imposition of a constructive trust.  (Pero Decl., Exs. A-B.)

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

The court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff has included a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint and stated what allegations in the previous pleading are to be deleted and added, and the location of those allegations.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, subd. (a); Pero Decl., Ex. A.)  Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of Matthew J. Pero, who describes the effect of the amendment and explains why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the allegations were discovered, and the reasons for why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Pero Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7, 8-14.)

            The court notes that Defendants argue, in opposition, that granting Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint would be unfair, since (1) Plaintiff would be defeating summary judgment by presenting a “moving target” of a pleading, (2) the allegations were not recently discovered, and Plaintiff did not act diligently, and (3) adding a cause of action against Keiko Hasegawa as an individual will prejudice her.

The court finds that, although granting leave to amend may impact Defendants, Defendants will not be unreasonably prejudiced, as opposed to the prejudice that Plaintiff will face if she is unable to present all valid claims against Defendants in this action.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel has stated in his declaration that he personally became involved in Plaintiff’s case only within the past three months and has since discovered the facts giving rise to the allegations Plaintiff seeks to add.  (Pero Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.)   

The court finds that allowing Plaintiff to file her proposed First Amended Complaint is in the interests of justice and efficiency, and that Defendants will not be unreasonably prejudiced by the amendment. 

The court therefore grants plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso’s motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRIAL

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) continuing the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, currently set for hearing on November 7, 2022, for 90 days, and (2) continuing the hearing on the jury trial, currently set for December 28, 2022.

First, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  As set forth above, the court has granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.  Once Plaintiff files the First Amended Complaint, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be moot and will be taken off calendar.  (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [“the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint”].)

Second, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial and related dates, since the parties have stated that Defendants “now believe that a brief continuance of the trial date” is warranted.  (October 14, 2022 Stipulation on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, p. 2:6-10.) 

The court therefore grants in part and denies in part plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso’s ex parte application to continue Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and trial.

The court denies Plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and grants Plaintiff’s request to continue the trial and trial-related dates.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso’s motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint.

The court orders plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso to file the First Amended Complaint, as attached to the declaration of Matthew J. Pero as Exhibit A, within 5 days of the date of this order.

The court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso’s ex parte application to continue Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and trial. 

The court denies plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso’s request to continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the court grants plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso’s request to continue the trial and trial-related dates as set forth in the separate Order on Ex Parte Application that shall be filed concurrently with this order.             

The court orders Plaintiff Haryati T.S. Sentoso to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 24, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court