Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV00940 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00940, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00940 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: G

Cross-Complainants Chung Woo Chan, Tai Wan Wong, and LMI Autoparts Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainants Chung Woo Chan, Tai Wan Wong, and LMI Autoparts Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED and deemed filed as of this date.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from an agreement to clear out a warehouse. On June 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Jin Hong Gong and Ling Fong entered into an oral agreement with Defendants Chung Woo Chan (Chan), Tai Wan Wong (Wong), and LMI Autoparts Inc. (LMI) in which Plaintiff agreed to clear out Defendants’ warehouse in the City of Industry by August 31 in exchange for Defendants paying $3 per square foot. After Plaintiffs allegedly completed the tasks on August 11, Plaintiffs allege Defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay them.

On November 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-10, alleging (1) breach of contract and (2) common counts.

On December 20, 2021, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and Roes 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) equitable indemnity, (5) apportionment and contribution, and (6) declaratory relief.

On March 16, 2023, Defendants filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for April 12. A final status conference is also set for October 31 along with a jury trial on November 14.

ANALYSIS

Defendants seek leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC) that remove a cross-complainant, restates and clarifies allegations, clarifies first and third causes of action, and removes the second cause of action. For the following reasons, the court agrees.

Legal Standard

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)¿“A motion to amend a pleading before trial must . . . [s]tate 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 [s]tate 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.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)¿ The declaration must also specify the amendment’s effect, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts supporting the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

If the party seeking the amendment has needlessly delayed, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend.¿ (See 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.¿ (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

Discussion

Defendants provide that the effect of amendment is to remove a cross-complainant (Wong), clarify factual allegations, clarify the first cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, clarify the third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and remove the third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

Defendants argue the amendment is necessary and proper to encapsulate all relevant agreements and allow Defendants to recover all damages suffered from Plaintiffs’ alleged misrepresentations. Defendants’ counsel admits the amendment was not made earlier because counsel’s firm was in the process of reviewing and investigating the allegations and conducting discovery. (Chou Decl., ¶ 4.)

The court finds Defendants have established sufficient grounds to support amendment and now considers any prejudice to Plaintiffs. While trial is set for November 2023, the amendment does not add any new parties or causes of action and thus is not likely to significantly prejudice Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the court is not in receipt of any timely opposition from Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a FACC is GRANTED and the FACC attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Defendants’ counsel is deemed filed as of this date.