Case Number: BC630062 Hearing Date: March 15, 2018 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Fraser Ross,

Plaintiff,

vs.

christopher lee, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 630062

Hearing Date:

March 15, 2018

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD BHK INVESTMENTS LLC AS DEFENDANT TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiff Fraser Ross (“Plaintiff”) brought this action on August 9, 2016. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 12, 2017 against Defendants Christopher Lee (“Lee”), Salus Capital Partners, LLC (“Salus”), HGI Asset Management Holdings, LLC (“HGI”), and Spencer Spirit Holdings, Inc. (“Spencer”).

On December 15, 2017, the Court sustained the demurrer by Salus and HGI to the seventh (UCL violations) and eighth (unjust enrichment/constructive trust) causes of action with leave to amend.

On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Concurrent with the filing of the SAC, Plaintiff now moves for leave to add an additional defendant, BHK Investments LLC (“BHK”) to the SAC. Though Plaintiff is seeking leave to add BHK to the SAC, the SAC filed on January 16, 2018 already reflects the addition of BHK. Spencer filed an Answer to the SAC on February 20, 2018. Salus and HGI filed a demurrer to the SAC on February 20, 2018, and indicated that they were reserving their right to oppose the instant motion. However, no opposition to the instant motion has been filed by any party.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides that the court “may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party….” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” ((Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” ((Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 (Morgan).) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” ((Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) “The power to permit amendments is interpreted very liberally as long as the plaintiff does not attempt to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” ((Herrera v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 255, 259 [internal quotations omitted].)

Plaintiff contends that recent discovery as well as Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer with Spencer have indicated that BHK is an entity that maintains certain communications relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. (Eberwine Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Therefore, Plaintiff has reason to believe that BHK is a subsidiary or affiliate of Spencer. (Eberwine Decl., ¶ 7.) Notwithstanding that Plaintiff improperly filed the amended SAC without first obtaining leave of court to do so, and in light of the fact that no opposition to the motion was filed, the Court allows the amendment.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to add BHK Investments LLC as Defendant to Second Amended Complaint is granted. The SAC is deemed filed and served as of January 16, 2018.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED: March 15, 2018 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court