Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: LC107510, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: LC107510    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  The Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs to serve and efile separate copy of Third Amended Complaint within 20 days.

1. Introduction

   Plaintiffs Seda Galstian Aghaian and Aida Galstian Norhadian, individually and as Trustees of The Galstian Trust II U/A/D October 26, 1982, as amended and restated July 1, 2005, filed the instant action on July 13, 2018.

   Pursuant to the Court of Appeal decision in Appellate Case No. B300726, filed December 31, 2020, the judgment entered August 27, 2020 was vacated. (Min Or. 01/11/21.)

   On July 06, 201, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging:

A.  Fraudulent Transfer

B.  Aiding and Abetting Fraudulent Transfer

C.  Unjust Enrichment.

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking leave to file Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The motion remains unopposed.

1. Legal Standards

   “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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP), § 473.)¿ CCP section 576 also grants the court power to allow a party to amend its pleading in the furtherance of justice.  

   California courts are required to permit liberal amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice between the parties to an action. (Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 352.)¿ Generally, amendment must be permitted unless there is unwarranted delay in requesting leave to amend or undue prejudice to the opposing party. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.) Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may – of itself—be a valid reason for denial. (Emerald Bay Community Association v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1097.) 

   Under California Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (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. (CRC 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

2. Discussion

   Plaintiffs attest that leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) should be granted because Plaintiffs in to replace Defendant Alice Minassian, who is deceased, as a party and add Arthur Minassian (“Arthur”) and Madlene Minassian (“Madlene”) as Defendants to the fraudulent transfer claim. The amendment is based on Arthur’s transfer of the two real properties at issue to himself and Madlene that occurred in the last few months. Arthur and Madlene will be sued in their individual capacity and as successor trustees of the Minassian Trust dated as of March 2, 2018.

   Plaintiffs will also be dismissing the third cause of action of unjust enrichment and addition part of that claim of the fraudulent transfer claim pursuant to Defendant Alice Minassian’s demurrer and motion to strike portions to the Second Amended Complaint.

   Pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1324, the motion includes a copy of the proposed TAC, outlines the proposed changes and deletions to the previous pleadings, and explains why the amendments are needed. Plaintiffs' counsel, Gregory J. Aldisert also provided a declaration specifying the effect of the amendments, why they are necessary and proper, and the timeliness in seeking leave to amend.

   Moreover, Defendants have not opposed this motion and Plaintiffs assert that Defendants will suffer no prejudice because there has been limited discovery in the case, no depositions have been taken, and the trial date has been vacated.

   Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.   Plaintiffs to serve and efile separate copy of Third Amended Complaint within 20 days.          

            IT IS SO ORDERED, PLAINTIFFS TO GIVE NOTICE.