17-CIV-02699 ANDRE FAHRI, ET AL. VS. IRAJ ADINEH, ET AL.

ANDRE FAHRI IRAJ ADINEH
ELAINE R. LEE CHARLES S. BRONITSKY

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ADD PARTY) BY ANDRE FAHRI AND JOLANTA FAHRI TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs ANDRE FAHRI and JOLANTA FAHRI’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §473. Plaintiffs are given leave to file their amended pleading no later than August 17, 2018.

California’s judicial policy is to exercise discretion liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. If discovery and investigation develop factual grounds justifying a timely amendment to a pleading, leave to amend must be liberally granted. Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596. Indeed, a court may properly grant leave to amend “at any stage of proceedings, up to and including trial.” Atkinson v. Elk Corp (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.

Plaintiffs’ moving papers included a discussion of what changes would be included with their proposed amended complaint and was accompanied by a declaration from their counsel regarding the effect of the amendment; why it was necessary and proper; when the facts were discovered and why the request to amend was not made earlier. The motion inadvertently omitted a copy of the proposed amended complaint, which Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted on reply.

Defendant IRAJ ADINEH’s only relevant argument is whether the proposed Sixth Cause of Action for aiding and abetting properly alleges the knowledge element of this tort. The proposed amended complaint alleges that Defendant’s son REZA ADINEH knew about this action and about Plaintiffs’ lis pendens because he accepted sub-service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of his father on June 21, 2017. FRED SLIGHTAM entered into an agreement with Defendant to buy the property, with Reza acting as his father’s real estate agent, on September 9, 2017. SAMIRA CALHOUB (Fred’s real estate agent) and Reza are alleged to have knowingly assisted Fred and Defendant in the transaction, resulting in Defendant breaching his fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. (Proposed TAC at ¶¶46-48.) This cause of action appears sufficiently pled.