Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV00525, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00525, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00525 Hearing Date: January 29, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 29, 2024

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00525

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Sikder Holding International, Inc., et al. v. Michael Ball, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Sikder Holdings International, Inc., a California corporation; R&R Beverages Group PTE, LTD., a Singapore Limited Company, Lisa Haque, an individual, and Nasim Sikder

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Michael Ball, et al. (No Opposition)

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: May 28, 2024

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

¿¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs, Sikder Holdings International, Inc, R&R Beverages Group PTE, LTD, Lisa Haque, and Nasim Sikder filed a Complaint against Defendants, Michael Ball, Marsha NA Nongkhai, aka Asha Kai, Ultracor, inc., and DOES 1 through 25. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (CWater); (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Denim Technologies); (4) Fraud/Concealment; (5) Conversion; and (6) Declaratory Relief.

On October 23, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial to May 17, 2024.

Plaintiffs now file a Motion for Leave to File FAC.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although 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 [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs move for an order allowing them to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The reasoning Plaintiffs have presented for this filing is that Plaintiffs have aggressively pursued additional information regarding Defendant, Ultracor, Inc. Since mid-2022, Plaintiffs outline numerous roadblocks that have halted their ability to amend and update their Complaint including: (1) failure of Ultracor to respond to discovery; (2) Ultracor being in contempt of court orders; (3) Ultracor not responding to noticed depositions and their PMQ not showing up; (4) Ultracor’s principal, Nongkhai failing to appear at either of her noticed depositions; and (5) objections to subpoenas to chase bank records by Nongkhai despite her non-appearance in discovery matters.

Now, Plaintiffs note that their proposed FAC disposes of their breach of contract and breach of fiduciary claims against defendant, and reduces the causes of action from six to three. This Court notes that although it granted Plaintiffs’ previous motion to enforce the subpoena against Ultracor’s Chase Bank records on January 2, 2024, and that Chase Bank has also previously produced 3,189 pages of bank records, that much of this discovery, like the propounded discovery requests to Ultracor, and the PMQ depositions have not been resolved entirely. Because of this, the Court notes that it is unsure if Plaintiffs will be continuously requesting Motion for Leave to file an amended pleading along with a motion to continue trial. Counsel for Plaintiffs in this case, and in the related case, just requested this Court continue trial based on the trial date in this case, as such, the Court wants to ensure that Plaintiffs do not think another continued trial, in both cases, is necessary.

Further, the Court requests information on whether Ultracor’s principal, Nongkhai attended her deposition on January 17, 2024. If Plaintiffs contend that after this motion, they will have enough evidence to move forward with their May trial date, the Court is inclined to GRANT this motion.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are permitted to file a First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.