Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV05551, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05551    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 45

WESTSIDE VALLEY VENTURE, LLC V. SUN YUEN LIU, et al.

Motion for leave to file FIRST amended complaint

Date of Hearing:   March 11, 2025                 Trial Date:       Not set.

Department:         45                                       Case No.:         24STCV05551

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Westside Valley Venture, LLC

Responding Party:       Defendant James Chewen Chang

BACKGROUND

This is a quiet title action. On March 5, 2024, plaintiff Westside Valley Venture, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against the following defendants:

1.      Sun Yuen Liu, individually and as the beneficial owner of Sun Yuen Liu IRA Services, Custodian FBO: Sun Yuen Liu, IRA;

2.      James Chewen Chang, individually and as the beneficial owner of James Chewen Chang Defined Benefit Plan and Trust;

3.      Kelly Hui Wang, individually and as the beneficial owner of IRA Services, Trust Company, Custodian FBO: Kelly Hui Wang, IRA;

4.      Does 1 through 10, inclusive; and

5.      All persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the Complaint.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) specific performance, (3) quiet title, (4) declaratory relief, (5) declaratory relief, (6) interference with contractual relations, and (7) partition.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On or about December 28, 2023, Defendant Sun Yuen Liu signed a written “Purchase and Sale Agreement” for the sale of his interest in a vacant real property in Los Angeles, California (the Property) to the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 10.) At the time Plaintiff and Sun Yuen Liu signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Sun Yuen Liu’s interest in the Property was worth $65,000. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement on or about January 2, 2024, and performed its duties under the agreement. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 13.) However, Sun Yuen Liu has failed to convey the title of the Property to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, “a declaration of the respective right between Plaintiff and the named Defendants that Plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser in fee of the 50% interest of SUN YUEN LIU in the Property, that it owns in fee of the 50% interest in the Property, and that Plaintiff has a superior title on the Property against the named Defendants.” (Compl. ¶ 42.)

On May 17, 2024, Defendant James Chewen Chang (Chang), individually and as the beneficial owner of James Chewen Chang Defined Benefit Plan and Trust, filed his Answer to the Complaint; a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, Sun Yuen Liu, and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) specific performance, (2) breach of contract (Count I), (3) breach of contract (Count II), (4) fraud, and (5) declaratory relief; and a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the “anti-SLAPP motion”). The latter motion was withdrawn on February 24, 2025.

On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff closed on its purchase of Sun Yuen Liu’s 50% tenancy-in-common interest in the Property.

On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint seeks to, among other things, delete all six (6) causes of action in the original Complaint, and only assert causes of action for (1) declaratory relief and (2) quiet title. (Motion, Decl. Steckbauer ¶ 2, Exh 1.)

On March 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint.  

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

The trial court has discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (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[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[I]f a party seeking amendment has been dilatory and/or the delay has prejudiced or will prejudice the opposing party, the trial court in its discretion may deny leave to amend.” (M&F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Ins. Managers, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1534, citing Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) “Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted [Citation], provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1448, citing Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

A motion for leave to amend must include a separate declaration specifying: (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, subd. (b).) A motion for leave to amend must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(1).) Moreover, a motion to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and must set forth the page, paragraph, and line number of such allegations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1324, subd. (a)(2)-(3).)  

ANALYSIS

Procedural Compliance

Plaintiff’s counsel, William Steckbauer, submits a declaration and attaches exhibits in support of the motion to satisfy the requirements under the California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1324, subd. (b). Plaintiff identifies the amendments, their effect, why they are necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Steckbauer Decl. ¶¶ 2-9, Exhs. 1-3.)

Although Steckbauer does not specify the amendments or their effects, Steckbauer provides the amendments in Exhibit 1, the “redline copy” of the Verified First Amended Complaint, and Exhibit 2, the “clean copy” of the Verified First Amended Complaint. (Steckbauer Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. 1-2.) Additionally, Steckbauer states, “Th redline copy showing the changes to the original Verified Complaint show the effects of the amendments being made via the proposed First Amended Complaint.” (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 4.) Steckbauer is correct. The Court can see Plaintiff included two new sections titled “Parties” and “Jurisdiction and Venue.” (Steckbauer Decl., Exh. 1.) Plaintiff also removes five causes of action and rewrites the causes of action for Declaratory Relief and Quiet Title. (Steckbauer Decl., Exh. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff alters its “Prayers for Relief” section. (Steckbauer Decl., Exh. 1.) 

Steckbauer states that Plaintiff’s amendments are necessary and proper, “because the fact that Plaintiff has now closed on its purchase of defendant [Sun Yuen] Liu’s 50% [tenancy-in-common] interest in the Property changes the facts and posture of the case from that alleged in the Original Complaint.” (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 6.) The recorded Grant Deed is attached as Exhibit 3.

As stated above, the amendments are based on the new fact that “Plaintiff has now closed on its purchase of defendant [Sun Yuen] Liu’s 50% [tenancy-in-common] interest in the Property[.]” (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 6.) The purchase occurred on May 16, 2024. (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff did not request the amendment earlier, because “Plaintiff’s closed on its purchase of Liu’s 50% TIC interest on the Property on May 16, 2024 and I have been attempting to acquire the Chang Defendants’ counsel’s stipulation to allow Plaintiff to file its Verified First Amended Complaint since we became aware on May 20, [2024] that the Chang Defendants had filed an answer to a complaint that had not yet been served.” (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 8.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies the procedural requirement under the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).

Plaintiff also meets the procedural requirements under the California Rules of Court, rules 3.1324, subd. (a)(1)-(3). Plaintiff’s motion for leave provides a redlined and clean copies of the proposed Amended Answer. (Steckbauer Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. 1-2.) The redlined copy in Exhibit 1 shows the proposed amendments and sets forth the page, paragraph, and line numbers of the amendments. (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Thus, Plaintiff satisfies the procedural requirements under the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(1)-(3).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies all procedural requirements.

Prejudice

Allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint at this stage would not result in undue prejudice against defendants. Trial is not yet set and there is no need to reopen discovery. (Steckbauer Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant Chang does not oppose the amendment.