Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00891, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00891 Hearing Date: August 17, 2022 Dept: R
Cultiva
Group v. Andrew’s Son Trading, Inc., et al. (21PSCV00891)
Plaintiff Cultiva Group’s Motion for Leave to File its First
Amended Complaint
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Cultiva Group’s Motion for Leave to File its
First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Background
This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff Cultiva Group
(“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendants Andrew’s Son Trading,
Inc. and Jiazheng Lu aka Andrew Lu (collectively, “Defendants”): the parties
entered into a contract wherein Defendants would sell Plaintiff’s products. The
contract specifically authorized Defendants to use Plaintiff’s Amazon plaintiff
and did not authorize Defendants to sell on any other account in Amazon or
platform. Defendants allegedly breached the contract by selling products on
other platforms.
On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants
and Does 1-50 for:
1.
Breach of Contract,
2.
Common Counts,
3.
Open Book Account,
4.
Fraud,
5.
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, and
6.
Unfair Business Practices
On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Attachment.
On March 21, 2022, Defendants filed their Answer.
On May 12, 2022, a ‘Stipulation for Leave to File Cross-Complaint’
was filed.
On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
leave to file an amended complaint.
On August 4, 2022, Defendants filed their Opposition.
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Reply to the
Opposition.
Legal Standard
“The court
may…in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms
as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other
particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time
limited by this code.” CCP § 473(a)(1).
A party
requesting leave to amend must also comply with California Rules of Court
(“CRC”) Rule 3.1324, by including a copy of the proposed amended pleading and
attaching a declaration by counsel, as to (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) why the request was not made
earlier. CRC Rule 3.1324(b). The motion itself must state what allegations
in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and what allegations are
proposed to be added to the previous pleading, and where, by page, paragraph,
and line number, the deleted or additional allegations are located. CRC Rule
3.1324(a).
California
law holds that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish
substantial justice for both parties. (Hirsa
v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89; CCP § 576.) “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 (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) “It is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing
party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp.
(2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint primarily
to correct a mistaken date of the contract and to provide better clarity and
factual background as to the relationship between CULTIVA and DEFENDANTS.
Here, as Plaintiff has (i) complied with the California
Rules of Court, (ii) demonstrated that Defendants will not be prejudiced as
they are aware of the correct factual allegations, and (iii) indicated
Defendants will not suffer prejudice as no trial date has yet been set, the
court finds no reason to deny the motion.
Conclusion