Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 21STCV24038, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff identifies the proposed amendments and provides a copy of the proposed second amended complaint, including a redlined version. (Kashfian Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff seeks to add Defendants Temple Williams and Circle W Productions Inc. to the caption page (see Code Civ. Proc., § 422.40; California Rules of Court, rule 2.111(4)) and to include a new cause of action for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that, upon reviewing the pleadings in early October 2024 following service of Defendants’ answers, counsel discovered facts that supported an additional cause of action for unjust enrichment as an alternative theory of liability against Defendants. (Kashfian Decl. ¶ 11.) This cause of action was not previously asserted due to counsel’s oversight and inadvertence. (Kashfian Decl. ¶ 17.)

Defendant Cyndi Finkle opposes the motion on the grounds that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action. The Court does not ordinarily consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading when determining whether to grant leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) However, the Court does note that although unjust enrichment is generally not a cause of action, a court may construe a cause of action for unjust enrichment as a cause of action for quasi-contract seeking restitution. (Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231.)

Because there is no showing of prejudice, the motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint, received on October 25, 2024, is deemed filed as of November 19, 2024.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court