Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV04269, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 21STCV04269    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

 

290 beowawie llc,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

indinero inc., et al.,

                        Defendants.

Case No.:

21STCV04269

Hearing Date:

February 15, 2023

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

 

MOTION OF PLAINTIFF 290 BEOWAWIE LLC FOR ORDER CORRECTING NAME OF DEFENDANT PRY FINANCIALS INC. TO DEFENDANT BREX PRY FINANCIALS LLC

 

Background

Plaintiff 290 Beowawie LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on February 2, 2021.

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Indinero Inc., Jessica Mah, Andy Su aka Andrew Su aka Dizhe Su, Employees First Advocates LLC, Pry Financials Inc., Brex Pry Financials LLC, and Hayden Jensen. The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) relief against avoidable transfers and/or obligations, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) quia timet, and (5) unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff now moves for an order correcting the name of Defendant Pry Financials Inc. to Defendant Brex Pry Financials LLC. Pry Financials Inc. and Brex Pry Financials LLC (jointly, “Defendants”) oppose.

 

 

            Discussion

            In the motion, Plaintiff indicates that it “seeks an order correcting the name of Defendant Pry Financials Inc. to Defendant Brex Pry Financials LLC based on the fact that on or about April 19, 2022, Defendant Pry Financials Inc. merged with Defendant Brex Pry Financials LLC, leaving the surviving entity, Defendant Brex Pry Financials LLC.” (Mot. at p. 1:9-12.)

            As an initial matter, the instant motion was filed by Plaintiff on June 15, 2022.

Thereafter, on October 20, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative SAC against, inter alia, Pry Financials Inc. and Brex Pry Financials LLC. The Court thus agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s motion is moot.[1]

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

DATED:  February 15, 2023                                                 

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

 



[1]The Court notes that Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of the motion and thus does not dispute that the motion is moot.