Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 20STCV29458, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29458    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:    January 3, 2023                                              

CASE NAME:           Steven Roth v. Richard M Behfarin, et al.

CASE NO.:                20STCV29458

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Steven Roth

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of December 29, 2022

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.     An order granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff Steven Roth (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Reichard M. Behfarin, Robert Mobasseri (“Defendants”) alleging for the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract – Contingency Agreement, (2) Reformation – Contingency Agreement, (3) Declaratory Relief – Contingency Agreement, (4) Fraud/False Promise – Contingency Agreement and Mobasseri Agreement, (5) Injunctive Relief – Contingency Agreement, (6) Reformation – Mobasseri Agreement, (7) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations – Adhami Contract, (8) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage – Silva Contract, (9) Defamation; and (10) Unfair Business Practices. The complaint alleged the breach of two contracts governing Roth’s work as a consultant on a class action lawsuit, in which Behfarin was the class representative and Mobasseri a referring attorney, as well as interference with Roth’s work consulting on two other class action lawsuits.  

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 11, 2020.

On January 13, 2021, Defendant Mobasseri filed an Answer.

On January 14, 2021, Defendant Behfarin filed an Answer.

On November 8, 2021, Defendant Mobasseri filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which was DENIED.

On January 18, 2022, Defendant Mobasseri filed a Notice of Appeal.

On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, as to Defendant Mobasseri, and the 4^th and 7^th causes of action.

On June 8, 2022, Defendant filed an Abandonment of Appeal.

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint was filed. No Opposition was filed as of December 29, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD:

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, 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.” 

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).) 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.  

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), 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. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to remove two causes of action and various allegations as they relate to Defendant Mobasseri. Plaintiff and Defendant Mobasseri reached a settlement while the matter was stayed pending the appeal submitted by defendant Mobasseri.

The proposed SAC (1) removes the 4^th cause of action in its entirety, (2) removes the 7^th cause of action, (3) removes allegations as to those causes of action in the background facts, and (4) removes relief from the Prayer related to those specific causes of action. (Balice Dec. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff requested a stipulation from Defendant Behfarin, but Defendant declined to stipulate as Behfarin is self-representing and made accusations against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. (Motion 2: 18-23; Dec. Balice ¶ 10-11, Ex. C.)

The Court finds that there is good cause to allow leave to amend. “It is the general rule that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed.” (Simons v. Kern County (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 362, 367). Further, “And it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530). “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Here, Plaintiff is seeking to remove certain causes of action that are no longer relevant. Thus, leave to amend will not prejudice the Defendant as no new information is being added and discovery will not be impacted. Moreover, amending the FAC will promote judicial economy as only pertinent causes of action as to Defendant Behfarin will remain.

Further, Plaintiff has provided all the required information under Rule of Court, Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff has provided a declaration and the red-lined copy as well as the clean copy of the proposed SAC.

            Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             January 3, 2020                       _______­­­­­­­­­­___________________________                                                                                                                        Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court