Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20STCV37506, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV37506    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 45

UNIVERSAL GARMENT WASH & DYE, LLC vs SUSAN SIRKIN

defendant and cross-complainant evanston insurance company for leave to file first amended cross-complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 17, 2025                                     Trial Date:       September 8, 2025

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        20STCV37506

Moving Party:            Defendant/Cross-Complainant Evanston Insurance Company  

Responding Party:     No opposition   

BACKGROUND

This is a professional malpractice case. Plaintiff Universal Garment Wash & Dye, LLC filed the First Amended Complaint on December 14, 2021, against Defendants Susan Sirkin dba Sirkin Insurance Agency and Evanston Insurance Company (sued as DOE 1). The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) Professional Malpractice; (2) Breach of Contract; (3)Intentional Misrepresentation; and (4) Negligent Misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges in 2017, Plaintiff accepted an order from non-party, Five Star 26, LLC (“Five Star”) for the treatment of garments and performed the requested services. The garments were damaged due to an unexpected malfunction of Plaintiff’s equipment. Thereafter, Five Star made a claim against Plaintiff based upon the damage to the goods which were no longer merchantable and caused Five Star to be unable to use the goods or fulfill its order to its own client. Plaintiff presented Five Star’s claim to the insurance company under the Commercial General Liability and Inland Maritime policies. However, Plaintiff was denied coverage under both policies on the grounds that the claims were not covered under the terms of the policies. Plaintiff was then forced to settle Five Star’s claim without insurance for $330,000.00.

On May 6, 2022, Defendant Evanston Insurance Company (“EIC”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for Declaratory Relief.  

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Evanston Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant Evanston Insurance Company requests this court take judicial notice of several court documents (RJN, Exhs. 1-4.) The court grants the request for judicial notice as to the existence of these documents.

discussion

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Evanston Insurance Company move for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint on the grounds that Evanston only recently learned that the version of Plaintiff Universal Garment Wash & Dye, LLC’s General Commercial Liability Policy (“CGL Policy”) attached to Evanston’s original Cross-Complaint is not a complete version of the CGL Policy.

The trial court has discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. (CCP § 473(a)(1).) “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading.” (CCP § 576.) “There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding.” (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945, citation omitted.) “An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion.” (Ibid., citation omitted.)   

Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, a separate declaration must accompany a motion for leave to amend 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).) A party seeking leave to amend must attach a copy of the proposed pleading to the motion for leave to amend. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  

As noted above, Evanston recently discovered the CGL Policy attached to Evanston’s original Cross-Complaint is not a complete version of the CGL Policy. Accordingly, Evanston seeks leave to amend its Cross-Complaint in order to remedy this recently discovered clerical error and attach the accurate and complete version of the CGL Policy that is applicable to the loss and claims/cross-claims in this action. Evanston also seeks to make several additions and deletions to its first amended cross-complaint.

The motion is unopposed. Given Evanston has complied with Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, Evanston’s motion to amend the cross-complaint is GRANTED.