Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02467, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02467    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff Hammitt, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Hammitt, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff Hammitt, Inc. is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Complaint separately with the Court forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful termination action. On March 1, 2022, plaintiff Hammitt, Inc. (Plaintiff) entered into a Credit and Security Agreement (CSA) with defendants Brightflow.AI, Inc. and Bright Plastics, LLC (collectively, Defendants). Under the CSA, Bright Plastics, LLC loaned Plaintiff $8,000,000 with a fixed rate of 10.75% per annum after the initial twelve (12) month period. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff signed a Software Agreement with Defendants, committing Plaintiff to pay Defendants $350,000 annually/$29,166.67 monthly for an accounting software. On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff executed the First Amendment of the Loan with Defendants, which added an additional $1,000,000 to the loan. On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff amended the loan again in the Second Amendment of the Loan, which involved an additional $1,000,000 at an interest rate 7% above the “reference rate.” From March 2022 to July 30, 2024, Plaintiff paid more than $3,274,817.27 in interest payments to Defendants.

On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of California’s usury laws; (2) money had and received; and (3) declaratory relief.

On September 30, 2024, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint.

On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed this present motion. On April 22, 2025, Defendants filed a non-opposition. A hearing on the present motion is set for May 6, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the FAC, which includes a cause of action for violation of Business & Professions Code sections 1720, et seq. and the associated factual allegations. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

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).) Moving party must submit a declaration that specifies 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

Plaintiff argues that the proposed FAC’s effect is to include a fourth cause of action against Defendants for violation of the Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. and supporting allegations. (Bitzer Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff  explains that Plaintiff became aware of these supporting allegations when Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s discovery request on February 28, 2025. (Bitzer Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff asserts this amendment is necessary and proper because it will allow Plaintiff “to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence” obtained during discovery. (Bitzer Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants do not oppose this motion. (Non-Opp., p. 1:22-25.)

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the FAC is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed FAC separately with the court forthwith.