Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV00668, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). Greg Fernandez, Ring Pros LLC, Telco, and Champion Communications Inc. filed an opposition.

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 FAC. (Zalduendo Decl. ¶ 5; Zalduendo Decl., Ex. A].) The FAC removes Robert Conrad, Eric Bachkoff, Eric Cherry, Martin Cherry, and Joseph Randazza as defendants; and it removes the causes of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion of Ownership of the Number, Replevin, Concealment, Appointment of a Receiver, and Quantum Meruit. Although these dismissals could be done without filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff also proposes additional amendments to the remaining causes of action. (Zalduendo Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s new counsel in July 2023 “determined that the Complaint did not reflect the case [Plaintiff] would be bringing to trial,” and they met and conferred with defense counsel beginning on August 11, 2023. (Zalduendo Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) The request was not made earlier because the parties had previously been focused on settlement, and “[i]t was not until new counsel had come into this case, and trial appeared to be a reality, that the parties began in earnest to take action in this case.” (Zalduendo Decl. ¶ 11.)

Greg Fernandez, Ring Pros LLC, Telco, and Champion Communications Inc. argue that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking to amend. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) However, they do not show prejudice from the amendments. Although numerous, the amendments do not substantially change the facts or enlarge the issues in this case.

Because there is no showing of actual prejudice, the motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the FAC within five days.

Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. seeks to be admitted pro hac vice to represent Plaintiff Jose Luis Nazar in this action.

An attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction who is not be a resident of California, regularly employed in California, or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in California may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California. (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) The attorney must a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c).) The applicant must also pay a $50.00 fee to the State Bar of California. (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).)

The application must state (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

The application complies with the requirements, and the $500.00 application fee has been paid. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(1).)

On or before October 3, 2024, counsel must pay the annual renewal fee of $500.00. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(2).)

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Annual Pro Hac Vice Renewal Fees by Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. is scheduled for 10/04/2024 at 9:00 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse (October 4, 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