Case Number: 19STCV13723 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MULJONO LOEKMAN, etc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DAVID KU FANG LIN, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 19STCV13723

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date: February 18, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

FSC: June 29, 2020

Jury Trial: July 13, 2020

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Muljono Loekman; PAAS LLC; PAAS II LLC; and 21450 Golden Springs LLC

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants David Ku Fang Lin and Mui Fong Teng

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. Although filed late, the Court will exercise its discretion and will consider Defendants’ opposition papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a complaint arising from the alleged fraudulent acts of transferring and concealing real property assets, alleging causes of action for: (1) fraudulent transfer of real property with actual intent to defraud; (2) fraudulent transfer of real property with actual intent to defraud; (3) fraudulent transfer of real property with actual intent to defraud; (4) conspiracy to fraudulently transfer of real property; (5) conspiracy to fraudulently transfer of real property; (6) conspiracy to fraudulently transfer of real property; (7) aiding and abetting the fraudulent transfer of real property; (8) aiding and abetting the fraudulent transfer of real property; and (9) aiding and abetting the fraudulent transfer of real property.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order granting Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint to set aside fraudulent transfer, constructive trust, equitable lien, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and deeming filed the proposed First Amended Complaint submitted with their motion.

Issue No. 1: Procedural Non-Compliance

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 sets forth the necessary requirements with respect to a motion to amend a pleading. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a) says that a motion to amend a pleading must: (1) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) states that a separate declaration must accompany the motion for leave to amend and such declaration must specify: (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.

In connection with its moving papers, Plaintiffs present the declaration of their counsel, Edward C. Ip (“Ip”). Neither Ip declaration filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ moving or reply papers indicates: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) exactly when the facts giving rise to such amended allegations were discovered; and (4) does not indicate why the request for amendment was not made sooner. Plaintiffs’ motion also fails to state where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional and deleted allegations located in the proposed First Amended Complaint are located.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the mandatory requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 18th day of February 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court