Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV02835, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02835, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02835 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: June 12, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02835

CASE NAME: Nancy Jarmen Betlazar, individually and as Trustee of The Betlazar Family Trust Dated November 8, 2013 v. Angour Corporation, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Angour Corporation and Amir H. Amiri

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Nancy Jarmen Betlazar, individually ad as trustee of The Betlazar Family Trust Dated November 8, 2013 (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: May 5, 2025

MOTION: (1) Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Defendants shall file the amended answer as a stand-alone document, not as an attachment to another document, within 5 court days.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On August 29, 2023, Plaintiff, Nancy Jarmen Betlazar, individually and

as Trustee of The Betlazar Family Trust dated November 8, 2013 (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Angour Corporation, Amir H. Amiri, and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Money Lent; (2) Money Had and Received; (3) Account Stated; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Fraud and Deceit – Intentional Misrepresentation and Concealment; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (7) Financial Abuse of Elder; (8) Unfair Competition; (9) Accounting; and (10) Imposter of a Constructive Trust

On October 20, 2023, Defendants, Angour Corporation and Amir H. Amiri filed their original answer. After some discovery and investigation, Defendants seek Leave to Amend their Answer.

B. Procedural

On May 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. On June 6, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “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; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ 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; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ (See Id. at p. 1048.)¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid defense as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)¿

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.¿ Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted, and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.¿ In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.¿ If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.¿ (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)¿ Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.¿ (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)¿

B. Discussion

Preliminarily, this Court notes that Defendants have stated that Plaintiff stipulated to the requested relief to allow Defendants to amend their answer.

Defendants note that while they originally have asserted an affirmative defense based on various statutes of limitation in their operative Answer, the specific statutes cited in that affirmative defense must now be updated to address the gravamen of certain causes of action raised by Plaintiff that have been elaborated upon through discovery, and to identify certain subsections that were inadvertently left out of Defendants’ original Answer. Further, Defendants have complied with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), as they have: (1) included a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which is serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) states which allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) states which allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Further, Defendants have not completely complied with California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(b). Although their moving papers do speak to: (1) the effect of the amendment, (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper, (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier, Defendants do not do so via the separate declaration. But because Plaintiff has stipulated to the filing of an amended answer, the Court will not require strict compliance with Rule 3.1324(a)’s requirements.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendant shall file the amended answer as a stand-alone document, not as an attachment to another document, within 5 court days. Unless waived by all parties, Defendants are ordered to give notice.