LUXESSE INC., A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION VS EXOTO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Case Summary
On 07/01/2019 LUXESSE INC , A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EXOTO, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Other.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
*******6220
-
Filing Date:
07/01/2019
-
Case Status:
Other
-
Courthouse:
Spring Street Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Judge
WENDY CHANG
Party Details
Plaintiff
LUXESSE INC. A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION
Defendants
KEUSEYAN TONY PIERRE
EXOTO INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
KEUSSEYAN TONY PIERRE
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorney
BAE YOUNG HO
Court Documents
10/13/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
9/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amen...)
9/3/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amen...) of 09/03/2020
1/23/2020: Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend to File Amendment to Complaint
11/13/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
11/19/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
11/19/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Preservation of Right to Seek Punitive Damages
11/19/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment
11/20/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
9/12/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
8/9/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
8/9/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)
8/9/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence - Declaration re: Due Diligence
8/9/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
7/1/2019: Complaint - Complaint
7/1/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
7/1/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
7/1/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Docket Entries
- 10/15/2020
-
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/15/2020
- 10/15/2020
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/05/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/15/2020
- 10/13/2020
-
DocketOn the Complaint filed by LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation on 07/01/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation as to the entire action
- 10/09/2020
-
DocketAddress for Young Ho Bae (Attorney) updated
- 09/03/2020
-
DocketUpdated -- Motion for Leave to Amend to File Amendment to Complaint: Filed By: LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/03/2020
- 09/03/2020
-
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
- 09/03/2020
-
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amen...)
- 09/03/2020
-
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amen...) of 09/03/2020; Filed by: Clerk
- 09/03/2020
-
DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint scheduled for 09/03/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
- 09/03/2020
-
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 04/12/2021 08:30 AM
- 08/09/2019
-
DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by: LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation (Plaintiff); As to: TONY PIERRE KEUSEYAN (Defendant)
- 08/09/2019
-
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation (Plaintiff); As to: EXOTO, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 07/23/2019; Service Cost: 56.67; Service Cost Waived: No
- 07/05/2019
-
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
- 07/05/2019
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
- 07/05/2019
-
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
- 07/01/2019
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by: LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation (Plaintiff); As to: EXOTO, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); TONY PIERRE KEUSEYAN (Defendant)
- 07/01/2019
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation (Plaintiff); As to: EXOTO, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); TONY PIERRE KEUSEYAN (Defendant)
- 07/01/2019
-
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: LUXESSE INC., a Connecticut corporation (Plaintiff); As to: EXOTO, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); TONY PIERRE KEUSEYAN (Defendant)
- 07/01/2019
-
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
- 07/01/2019
-
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: 19STLC06220 Hearing Date: September 03, 2020 Dept: 26
LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING
(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Luxesse, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff Luxesse, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought suit for breach of contract against Defendants Exoto Inc. and Tony Pierre Keusseyan (“Defendants”). Following Defendants’ failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered their default on November 20, 2019. On January 23,
2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for leave to correct a clerical error in its name in the Complaint. Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Also, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)
Plaintiff’s motion complies with Rule 3.1324 with respect to the contents of the motion and inclusion of a supporting declaration. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).) Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting declaration set forth in detail what changes are to be added and where, and that the amendments arise following Plaintiff’s counsel’s discovery in January 2020 that Plaintiff was erroneously identified in the Complaint as a Connecticut corporation, when it is actually a New York corporation. (Motion, Nazdjanova Decl., ¶7.)
The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Ibid.) Here, nothing suggests inexcusable delay by Plaintiff or any prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted this action and now obtained default against Defendants. Nor does the change in Plaintiff’s state of incorporation make any difference in the merits of the action to Defendants’ prejudice.
The Court, therefore, finds that leave to amend is appropriate to allow Plaintiff to correct the state of its incorporation in the pleadings. Plaintiff’s Motion for Amend Complaint is GRANTED. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases