Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV06333, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06333    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 15, 2022                           TRIAL DATE: April 18, 2023

CASE:                         Laksh, Inc. et al. v. Templar Transportation Corporation, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV06333

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Laksh, Inc. and JROD Brothers, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of September 12, 2022.

CASE HISTORY:

• 02/16/21: Complaint filed.
• 06/22/21: First Amended Complaint filed.
• 03/22/22: Second Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract.

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a third amended complaint to add specific allegations as to damages relating to Defendant Better Late than Never, Inc., and to clarify the scope of injunctive relief sought. Defendants have not opposed this motion. (Notice of Failure to Oppose.)

The Court may, “at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, . . . allow the amendment of any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) A motion to amend a pleading before trial must meet the following requirements:

(a) Contents of motion

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.

(b) Supporting declaration

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

(CRC 3.1324.)

Contents of Motion

Plaintiff did not include a copy of the proposed third amended complaint in the motion itself. However, Plaintiff attached a copy of the proposed second amended complaint with the Declaration of Kathrin A. Wanner. (Decl. Wanner Exh. A.) Plaintiff has therefore substantially complied with California Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(1).

Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate which allegations are proposed to be added or deleted by page, paragraph, and line number, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3). However, Exhibit B of the Wanner declaration contains two identical redlines of the Third Amended Complaint, one in the form of revisions to a .pdf file, and one in the form of tracked changes to a .docx file. These documents identify each revision proposed, both additions and deletions, and allow the Court and all parties to determine where changes are made by page, paragraph, and line number. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with Rules of Court 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3).

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the requirements for the motion itself.

Supporting Declaration

The Declaration of Attorney Kathrin A. Wanner accompanying the motion clearly states the effect of the amendments, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(1). The effect of these amendments is to put Defendant BLTN Inc. on notice with specificity as to the minimum damages amount alleged against it, the rationale for those damages, and to clarify that the injunctive relief of transferring the rights to the 91605 territory to Plaintiff JROD Brothers, Inc. is sought against BLTN Inc. only. (Wanner Decl. ¶ 5.) The declaration has offered sufficient explanation of the effect of the proposed amendments.

The declaration does not specifically state why the new amendments are necessary and proper. However, the need and propriety of amending the Complaint to allege damages with specificity and to state with clarity the scope of any injunctive relief sought is apparent on its face. Given the liberal standards for motions seeking leave to amend and the policy favoring permitting amendments to pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have substantially complied with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(2).

The declaration sufficiently explains when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(3). The declaration states that the need for the proposed amendments arose when the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment against Defendant BLTN, Inc., on the grounds that Plaintiffs were not entitled to money damages greater than what was specifically alleged in the complaint, and that the scope of the injunctive relief sought appeared to impact the rights of other Defendants. (Wanner Decl. ¶¶ 6.) This explanation is sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden to show when the relevant facts were discovered.

The declaration offers sufficient explanation of why the request for amendment was not made earlier, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1324(b)(4). Plaintiffs’ counsel states that Plaintiffs became aware of the need for amendment of the Complaint with the Court’s August 8, 2022 ruling on the application for default judgment, and thus, implicitly, Plaintiffs were not aware of the need for amendment before that ruling. (See Wanner Decl. ¶ 6.) There is no question that Plaintiffs acted expeditiously after the Court’s ruling, filing this motion two weeks later, on August 23, 2022. The Declaration does not explain why Plaintiffs did not recognize that the Second Amended Complaint lacked the necessary specific allegations and language before the Court issued its August 8 ruling. However, considering the liberal standards favoring amended pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have offered sufficient explanations as to why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 15, 2022                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.