Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV23377, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23377    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 39

Sari Ehrenreich-Aronowitz v. Bruce M. Newmann

Case No. 21STCV23377

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

            Plaintiff Sari Ehrenreich-Aronowitz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against her brother, Bruce M. Newmann (“Defendant”), on June 23, 2021.  The parties each own 50% of a limited liability company that owns a 12-unit apartment building.  In the operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action, alleging that Defendant did not pay Plaintiff her rightful share of the revenue profits of the limited liability company.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made unauthorized distributions of revenue and profit to himself since 2006 and failed to account to Plaintiff for her ownership interest in the limited liability company. 

The parties previously appeared before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a receiver, but the parties resolved the issue with the Court’s assistance.  The parties have been discussing settlement, having participated in a mediation session with Judge John Doyle on November 21, 2023.  The parties have agreed to have the property appraised and participate in a second mediation session with Judge Doyle.  However, Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “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 ther code.”  The Court has wide discretion to allow either party to amend pleadings “upon any terms as may be just.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is liberally granted.  (Berman vs. Bromberg (1986) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.)  “[I]t is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Plaintiff seeks to add two additional causes of action: (1) Involuntary dissolution of the limited liability company, and (2) “[C]onversion based on the facts already alleged and developed through discovery in this case.  Plaintiff suggests that she will not propound any additional discovery because “[n]o additional discovery is made necessary.”  The Court agrees that these additional causes of action do not expand the scope of the case or necessitate additional discovery than what would otherwise be required for the remaining causes of action.  The Court also notes that the parties’ settlement discussions—both relating to the motion to appoint a receiver and with Judge Doyle—are good cause for the delay in filing this motion.   Defendant argues that the trial date is less than four months away.  That provides sufficient time to prepare for a trial that will include these additional causes of action.  Nevertheless, a trial continuance is the remedy to such concerns.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.       The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion on the following conditions: (a) Plaintiff will propound no further written discovery in this case; and (2) Plaintiff will stipulate to a trial continuance if requested by Defendant’s counsel. 

2.       Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.