Case Number: VC066790 Hearing Date: October 16, 2018 Dept: SEC

BHARATI v. BANSILAL

CASE NO.: VC066790

HEARING: 10/16/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. CCP § 576.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code § 452.)

This action stems from a familial dispute over real property located in India. Plaintiffs REMESHKUMAR BHARATI and JAGESHWARI BHARATI filed this action on December 15, 2017.

Plaintiffs’ move to amend its Complaint to include new causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and defamation. Further, Plaintiffs seek to substitute Ramesh Kumar Bharati for his estate because he has passed away. However, this substitution was only presented peripherally in Plaintiffs’ Reply and as such will not be addressed.

Defendants argue that these actions contradict material facts pled in the prior pleading, the motion does not meet the statutory requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), they will be unduly prejudiced, and the new causes of action fail to state a valid cause of action.

Generally, the Court is to exercise discretion liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Mable v. Hyatt (1998) 6 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) However, the Court also has discretion to deny leave where the proposed amendment omits or contradicts harmful facts pleaded in the original pleading, absent a showing of mistake or other sufficient excuse for changing the facts. Without such a showing, the amended pleading may be treated as a sham. (Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 946;

State of California ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) Proposed amendments contradicting “allegations in an earlier pleading will not be allowed in the absence of very satisfactory evidence upon which it is clearly shown that the earlier pleading is the result of mistake or inadvertence.” (American Advertising & Sales Co. v. Mid-Western Transport (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 875, 879 (emphasis added; internal quotes omitted).)

Here, Plaintiffs’ seek to add causes of action that contradict or omit certain information that was alleged in the previous lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to state that Plaintiff RAMESHKUMAR BHARATI came to acquire a 75% interest in the Subject Property, where he was previously alleged to share a 50% interest with his brother, Defendant SURESHKUMAR BANSILAL.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to show that the causes of action are based upon newly discovered evidence in January 2018. (Multani Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to add the new causes of action without leave of court initially, but has attested to their mistake and has properly sought leave in the instant motion. (Multani Decl., ¶ 3.) Further, Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to explain the contradictory percentage. (Bharati Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) The Court does not find that Defendants will be unduly prejudiced.

Accordingly, leave to amend to add the two new causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and defamation is GRANTED.