Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 19STCV18737, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18737    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Cross-Complainant Domus Design Group, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Domus is granted thirty days leave to file the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Defendant Onni Real Estate IX, LLC (“Onni Real”) was the owner of real property (“Real Property”) and Plaintiff Bee Construction (“Bee”) recorded a lien in the sum of $187,638.75 against the property after “furnishing labor to the Property.” (FAC ¶¶ 5-6). Also, earlier, Bee and Defendant Onni Contracting (California, Inc. (“Onni Contracting”) entered into a written agreement. (FAC ¶¶ 8-9.) Bee performed under the contract but Onni Contracting defaulted by not paying any of $547,100.54 due. (FAC ¶¶ 8-13.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On May 30, 2019, Bee filed the original Complaint in Case No. 19STCV18737 (“Action 1”), alleging two causes of action (“A1 Complaint”):

1.    Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien; and,

2.    Breach of Contract

On June 6, 2019, Espinosa Interior Solutions, Inc. (“Espinosa”) filed a Complaint against Bee, Onni Real, and HSBC USA NA in Case No. 19STCV19820 (“Action 2”) alleging three causes of action (“A2 Complaint”):

1.    Breach of Written Contract;

2.    Negligence; and,

3.    Conversion

On October 15, 2019, Onni Contracting and Onni Real filed a Cross-Complaint in Action 2 as to the A2 Complaint against Espinosa and Bee, alleging four causes of action (“A2 XC”):

1.    Negligence;

2.    Breach of Written Contract;

3.    Equitable Indemnity; and,

4.    Express Indemnity

On November 18, 2019, the parties stipulated to consolidate the related cases.

On January 24, 2019, Domus filed a Cross-Complaint to the A3 Complaint alleging six causes of action (“A3 XC1”):

1.    Breach of Contract;

2.    Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Liens;

3.    Common Counts;

4.    Unjust Enrichment;

5.    Conversion; and,

6.    Declaratory Relief.

On June 8, 2020, Geodis USA, Inc. (“Geodis”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Domus’ Cross-Complaint A3 XC1, alleging four causes of action (“A3 XC2”):

1.    Breach of Contract;

2.    Common Counts;

3.    Unjust Enrichment; and,

4.    Declaratory Relief

On April 8, 2021, Domus filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint to the A3 Complaint, alleging twelve causes of action (“A3 FAXC1”):

1.    Breach of Contract;

2.    Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Liens;

3.    Common Counts;

4.    Unjust Enrichment;

5.    Conversion;

6.    Declaratory Relief;

7.    Fraudulent Inducement;

8.    Fraud;

9.    Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

10.                   Unfair Business Practices;

11.                   Breach of Confidentiality; and,

12.                   Equitable Indemnification.

On October 14, 2022, Domus filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Cross-Complaint.

As of March 6, 2023, no Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

I.                MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED PLEADING

Cross-Complainant Domus moves for leave to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint.

When a party moves to amend a pleading, “courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. [Citations.]” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) In ruling on this type of motion, prejudice to another party is the main concern. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) The type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. (Ibid.) Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) 

Here, Domus seeks to add two Cross-Defendants in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint, both of whom are already parties in the related actions. (Blain Decl. ¶ 2(b).) Additionally, Domus seeks to include additional factual allegations. (Id. ¶ 2(a).) Domus does not seek to add any additional causes of action. (Id. ¶ 2(c).)

Domus contends that these amendments could not have been made earlier, as the new parties and factual allegations are based upon allegations made for the first time in Onni’s First Amended Cross-Complaint, which was filed on September 2022. (Id. ¶ 4.) Finally, Domus notes that three out of the five parties in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint stipulated to allow Domus to amend; the remaining parties did not file an Opposition. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that good cause exists to allow amendment of Domus’s First Amended Cross-Complaint. Moreover, as no Opposition has been filed, the Court finds that no party will be prejudiced by the amendment.

Accordingly, Domus’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. Domus is granted thirty days leave to file the amended pleading.

DATED:  March 7, 2023

___________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court