On 09/04/2018 TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against ELI'S COLLISION REPAIR, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RICK BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
ELI'S COLLISION REPAIR INC.
BOOSKA STEVEN ALFRED
BROOKS JOHN TINLEY
BADAWI SUZANNE Y.
BERBERICH DANIEL FRANCIS
11/4/2019: Notice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon - Notice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon
11/6/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities
11/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
11/27/2018: Other - (name extension) - Other - Substitution of Attorney Civil
5/23/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of trial
8/6/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application for an order (1) Compelling defendant Eli's to sit for a Deposition. (2) Granting Travelers leave to file a first amended complaint.
8/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceedings)
8/7/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ex-Parte Proceedings) of 08/07/2019
11/7/2018: Answer - Answer
11/7/2018: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint
11/7/2018: Notice of Trial - Notice of Trial
12/11/2018: Answer - Answer
9/4/2018: Summons - on Complaint
9/4/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet
9/4/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
9/4/2018: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)
Hearing04/30/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension)Read MoreRead Less
Hearing03/19/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint scheduled for 04/30/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Leave to Amend Complaint; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration Of Badawi In Support Of Motion; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ELI'S COLLISION REPAIR, INC., (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 03/19/2020 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 09/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43 Type changed from Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 to Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ELI'S COLLISION REPAIR, INC., (Defendant); Service Date: 09/28/2018; Service Cost: 55.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Rick Brown in Department F43 Chatsworth CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 09/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Chatsworth Courthouse at Department F43Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ELI'S COLLISION REPAIR, INC., (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 18CHLC25429 Hearing Date: August 05, 2020 Dept: 25
HEARING DATE: Wed., August 5, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25
CASE NAME: Travelers Insurance Company v. Eli’s Collision Repair, Inc.
CASE NUMBER: 18CHLC25429 COMP. FILED: 09-04-18
NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: NONE
MOTION C/O: NONE
TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company
RESP. PARTY: Defendant Eli’s Collision Repair, Inc.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
(CCP § 473(a))
Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is to be filed and served within ten (10) days of this order.
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: Filed on July 22, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None
REPLY: Filed on July 29, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None
On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Eli’s Collision Repair, Inc. (“Defendant”). On November 7, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint. On December 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. On August 7, 2019, without ruling on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, Department F43 at the Chatsworth Courthouse transferred the action to this limited jurisdiction department. (8/7/19 Minute Order.)
On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). On July 22, 2020, Defendant filed an Opposition and on July 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply.
Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. 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. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)
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. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)
Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint by withdrawing one cause of
action and adding causes of action for conversion and unjust enrichment based
on the same set of operative facts. (Mot., pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff has submitted a
copy of its First Amended Complaint and identified the pages and line numbers
where the proposed changes are located. (Id.,
Badawi Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5, Exh. B.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied
with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 as to the contents of the Motion
and supporting declaration.
In Opposition, Defendant argues the Court should deny leave to amend because unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action in California, but does not oppose the proposed conversion cause of action. (Oppo., p. 2:25-26.) Indeed, while some California courts recognize unjust enrichment as a cause of action, it is not recognized in the second appellate district. (De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 845, 870.) Rather, unjust enrichment is a “general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies” and is “synonymous with restitution.” (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 13 Cal.App.4th 379, 387; see also Levine v. Blue Shield of California (2010) Cal.App.4th 1117, 1138.)
Relying on Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231, Plaintiff argues that Courts have construed causes of action titled “unjust enrichment” as quasi-contractual claims seeking restitution. (Reply, p. 2:15-19.) Plaintiff also argues that under Hernandez v. Lopez (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 932, 939, “there is no particular form of pleading necessary to invoke an unjust enrichment theory.” In Hernandez, the Court noted that that the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim could be based on a breach of contract claim and found that “a detailed cause of action for breach of contract fully raised all the facts and circumstances in which equity could contemplate a quasi-contractual remedy to prevent [defendants] from being unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiffs.” (Hernandez, supra, at p. 939.) The appellate court further noted that “[t]he spirit of behind the law of unjust enrichment is to apply the law ‘outside of the box’ and fill in the cracks where common civil law and statutes fail to achieve justice.” (Id.)
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint, the Court finds that, like in Hernandez, Plaintiff’s breach of agreement and proposed unjust enrichment causes of action plead all facts and circumstances for a quasi-contractual claim seeking restitution. Finally, the Court notes that in its Opposition, Defendant does not argue it would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments and only seems to take issue with how the unjust enrichment cause of action is labeled, not its substance.
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Travelers Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is to be filed and served within ten (10) days of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases