Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00387, Date: 2023-04-06 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: 22PSCV00387    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiffs Bianca Sun, Tianze Sun, and Shuang Xia’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Bianca Sun, Tianze Sun, and Shuang Xia’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED and deemed filed as of this date.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for damages based on fraud. Plaintiff Bianca Sun is a naturalized U.S. citizen while Bianca Sun’s brother, Plaintiff Tianze Sun, and sister-in-law, Plaintiff Shuang Xia (Xia), are Chinese citizens. In January 2021, Tianze Sun and Xia’s non-immigrant visas were about to expire when their child was in serious medical condition and needed surgery. In order to stay in the United States for their child’s medical treatment, Tianze Sun and Xia sought out immigration experts and discovered Defendant Coastline Immigration Service, Inc. (Coastline). Bianca Sun, Tianze Sun, and Xia (collectively, Plaintiffs) met with Coastline’s principal, Defendant Jerry Chao-Min Hung (Hung), who allegedly advised Tianze Sun and Xia to extend their B visas and change their status to student visas. Hung claimed experience in handling these types of applications and guaranteed success. As compensation, Hung allegedly demanded a fee of $18,000 that would include tuition and costs for Optional Practice Training.

Plaintiffs agreed to utilize Coastline’s services and paid the $18,000 fee in cash. After their applications were denied by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Plaintiffs consulted with an attorney who informed them that (1) it was impossible for them to obtain extensions, (2) immigration consultants were not qualified to provide legal advice on immigration issues, (3) Coastline and Hung were not competent, and (4) immigration legal services did not have the right to collect tuition for schools. Plaintiffs also learned that the costs of tuition for Defendant Grace University were only $2,500.

On April 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Coastline, Hung, Grace University, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of oral agreement, (3) unlawful practice of laws, (4) civil conspiracy, (5) money had and money received, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, and (7) constructive fraud.

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed Grace University from the present action.

On March 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for April 6. A mandatory settlement conference is also set for September 7 with a final status conference on May 21, 2024 and jury trial on June 4.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that removes the fourth cause of action for civil conspiracy and adds a seventh cause of action for violation of the California Immigration Consultant Act and an eighth cause of action for injunctive relief. 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

Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that the effect of the amendment is to remove any allegations against dismissed party Grace University including the fourth cause of action for civil conspiracy, to add a seventh cause of action for violation of the California Immigration Consultant Act (ICA), and to add an eighth cause of action for injunctive relief pursuant to ICA. (Luan Decl., ¶ 7-8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also states other changes are minor and involve replacing requested damages with civil penalties and correction of grammatical errors. (Luan Decl., ¶ 9.) Lastly, Plaintiffs’ counsel states the changes are necessary “to streamline the complaint and to plead the best causes of action for the best interests of my clients and in the furtherance of justice.” (Luan Decl., ¶ 6.)

The court finds Plaintiffs have established sufficient grounds to support amendment and now considers any prejudice to Defendants. While the amendment will allege additional causes of action, the court notes it is based on the same or similar facts alleged in the original complaint. Although trial is set for June 2024, the court notes discovery is ongoing and should not be significantly delayed by new allegations. Lastly, the court is not in receipt of any timely opposition from Defendants.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

CONCLUSION

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