Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV31156, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31156    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff Cynthia Beck (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Daniel Leighton, John Tannet, Metro Intelligence, and One Matrix Models. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) deceit, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) breach of contract, (6) conversion, (7) negligence, (8) promissory estoppel, (9) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (10) declaratory and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff now moves for an order permitting the filing of an amended complaint. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….”   (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

The Court further notes that “‘[Code of Civil Procedure section] 469 specifically governs motions to amend at trial to conform to proof … . [It] provides in relevant part as follows: ‘No variance between the allegation in a pleading and the proof is to be deemed material, unless it has actually misled the adverse party to his prejudice in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits.’ Such amendments at trial to conform to proof, ‘if not prejudicial, are favored since their purpose is to do justice and avoid further useless litigation.’ …” (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1378.) “The cases on amending pleadings during trial suggest trial courts should be guided by two general principles: (1) whether facts or legal theories are being changed and (2) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. Frequently, each principle represents a different side of the same coin: If new facts are being alleged, prejudice may easily result because of the inability of the other party to investigate the validity of the factual allegations while engaged in trial or to call rebuttal witnesses. If the same set of facts supports merely a different theory … no prejudice can result…The basic rule applicable to amendments to conform to proof is that the amended pleading must be based upon the same general set of facts as those upon which the cause of action or defense as originally pleaded was grounded…” (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].)

In the motion, Plaintiff states that she moves “for leave to file its [sic] Amended Complaint to amend the identity of the Defendant based on information obtained during the trial on January 11, 2023.” (Mot. at p. 2:1-2.)

Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel in support of the motion, who states that

“Metro Intelligence is a criminal investigation business run by Mr. John Hancock,” and that  “Mr. Hancock represents himself as the CEO and founder of Metro Intelligence.” (Vu Decl.,       ¶ 14, Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[o]n or around January 11, 2023…the Court held the first day of non-jury trial in this matter. Plaintiff appeared in person, represented by counsel, Defendant Mr. Daniel Leighton appeared in person, and Mr. John Hancock called in.” (Vu Decl., ¶ 31.)

            Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[d]uring trial, there were concerns that the Defendant Metro Intelligence was a corporation and would not be able to defend itself, because there was no attorney retained to represent Metro Intelligence. However, Mr. Hancock claimed that he was not a corporation but instead an individual doing business as Metro Intelligence.” (Vu Decl.,       ¶ 32.) Plaintiff cites to the following testimony from Mr. Hancock at trial: “Q. So you represent, at least on your website, that Metro Intelligence is a corporation, right? That’s what a CEO is associated with, correct? A. Nowhere on there does it say I’m a corporation anywhere…A. I’m a sole proprietor of a business. Q. So when you do work under Metro Intelligence, that’s the same as you doing work as yourself as an individual, correct? A. That’s correct.” (Vu Decl., ¶ 32, Ex. M (Trial Transcript) p. 21:19-22:6.)

Plaintiff thus asserts in the motion that “Plaintiff’s complaint may be defective as the Defendant Metro Intelligence is incorrectly identified as a legal entity, when in fact it is sole proprietorship.” (Mot. at p. 7:11-12.)

Plaintiff’s counsel also indicates that “[o]n or around May 22, 2023, the Court held the third day of non-jury trial in this matter and ordered a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave.” (Vu Decl., ¶ 33.) On May 22, 2023, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, “Plaintiff’s counsel to file motion to amend to conform to proof.”

            In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel notes that an answer was filed in this matter on April 16, 2021, titled “Verified Answer to Verified Complaint Filed by Cynthia Beck.” The Answer attaches a Verification signed by John Hancock, which states, inter alia, “I, John Hancock, declare as follows: 1. I am the owner of Metro Intelligence, a Real Party in Interest in this action and am authorized to execute this verification on its behalf…”  

Plaintiff asserts that “in the interest of justice…Plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to include Mr. John Hancock as a Defendant. This amendment would not prejudice Mr. Hancock nor would it prejudice Metro Intelligence, as Mr. Hancock had been vigorously defending himself and Metro Intelligence throughout this matter.” (Mot. at p. 7:26-8:3.) The Court notes that as the motion is unopposed, no opposing party has asserted any prejudice by the proposed amendment. In addition, the Court notes that the proof of service filed with the instant motion indicates that the motion was served by electronic service on, inter alia, “johnhancock@metrointelligence.com”.

            Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to amend the Complaint to include John Hancock as a Defendant.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  July 20, 2023                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court