Case Name: Yo, LLC v. Krucker, et al.
Case No.: 17-CV-306261

There are two motions presently before the Court: (1) a motion to strike the entirety of the second amended complaint (“SAC”) brought by defendants Ruth Elly Krucker, PA Restaurant Holdings, LLC, PA Hotel Holdings, LLC, and Lawrence Investments, LLC (collectively “Defendants”); and (2) a motion for leave to amend filed by plaintiff Yo, LLC (“Plaintiff”).

For context, Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint, which the court sustained in part because Plaintiff failed to adequately allege each defendant’s knowledge of the contract in connection with the causes of action for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations. To presumably cure this defect, Plaintiff bolstered the alter ego allegations and included conspiracy allegations in the SAC. Plaintiff also added: (1) a request for injunctive relief in the declaratory relief cause of action; (2) a prayer for a determination that the corporate defendants are holding the subject property in a constructive trust for Plaintiff; (3) a request for leave to amend to include the name of Lawrence Investments’ owner once the name is discovered; and (4) a new named defendant, Venture Holdings, LLC (“Venture”).

Defendants move to strike the SAC on the basis it was not filed in conformity with the prior court order, arguing the amendments are outside the scope of the court’s ruling on the demurrer. On the other hand, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend its pleading to include the new allegations and add Venture as a defendant. To be clear, Plaintiff does not propose filing a third amended complaint, but seeks leave to file the SAC, already filed on November 17, 2017 after the order on demurrer.

While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff did not adhere to the procedures set forth for filing amended pleadings that require moving for leave to amend because the new pleading, and first filed a motion for leave to amend after the subject pleading had been filed (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 472-473), the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion has merit. It would be a waste of judicial resources to deny an otherwise meritorious motion, strike the SAC, and order Plaintiff to re-file a motion for leave to amend in order to plead the new allegations in a third amended complaint. As such, the present motion for leave to amend is GRANTED and the SAC filed on November 17, 2017 is deemed the operative pleading. Defendants’ motion to strike is therefore MOOT and is DENIED.

The Court shall prepare the Order.