This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 00:30:26 (UTC).

JAMES HAWRYLA MECREDY VS SONIC INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/10/2015 JAMES HAWRYLA MECREDY filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against SONIC INDUSTRIES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY W. ALARCON and DALILA CORRAL LYONS. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3961

  • Filing Date:

    09/10/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GREGORY W. ALARCON

DALILA CORRAL LYONS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MECREDY JAMES HAWRYLA

Defendants and Respondents

BESKY LESLY

DOES 1-50

RAMSEY BRENT

RBC BEARINGS INCORPORATED

SARGENT AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE LLC

SONIC INDUSTRIES INC

SARGENT AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE

BESKY LESLIE

SONIC INDUSTRIES INC. JUDGMENT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

THE RUBIN LAW CORPORATION

JAMES H. CORDES ATTORNEY AT LAW

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ROSEN SABA LLP

ROSEN * SABA LLP

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/21/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

1/19/2016: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/19/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NONSUIT AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREVENTING SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT BY MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1050; DECLARATION OF KR

1/26/2017: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NONSUIT AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREVENTING SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT BY MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1050; DECLARATION OF KR

DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. RUBIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE ANY WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY

1/30/2017: DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. RUBIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE ANY WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY

PLAINTIFF JAMES HAWRYLA MECREDY'S NOTICE OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF SIX (6) WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF DISCOVERY

1/30/2017: PLAINTIFF JAMES HAWRYLA MECREDY'S NOTICE OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF SIX (6) WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF DISCOVERY

ORDER ON STIPULATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS SARGENT AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE, LLC, RBC BEARINGS INCORPORATED, BRENTT RAMSEY, AND LESLIE BESKE WITH PREJUDICE

2/1/2017: ORDER ON STIPULATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS SARGENT AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE, LLC, RBC BEARINGS INCORPORATED, BRENTT RAMSEY, AND LESLIE BESKE WITH PREJUDICE

DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY AS TO AMERICAN DRILLING'S SALES FIGURES AND HIS POTENTIAL COMMISSIONS AS SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPER LAY OPINION

4/28/2017: DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY AS TO AMERICAN DRILLING'S SALES FIGURES AND HIS POTENTIAL COMMISSIONS AS SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPER LAY OPINION

AMENDED JOINT WITNESS LIST

4/28/2017: AMENDED JOINT WITNESS LIST

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL REGARDING BRENTT RAMSEY

5/10/2017: DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL REGARDING BRENTT RAMSEY

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL REGARDING RICHIE TATUM

5/10/2017: DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL REGARDING RICHIE TATUM

Minute Order

5/16/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

7/11/2017: NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

8/1/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

OBJECTION TO LATE-FILED REPLY BRIEFS ON MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.

8/1/2017: OBJECTION TO LATE-FILED REPLY BRIEFS ON MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

11/8/2017: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

NOTICE OF APPEAL/CROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) (APPELLATE)

11/20/2017: NOTICE OF APPEAL/CROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) (APPELLATE)

APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

11/30/2017: APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

181 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2018
  • Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Sonic Industries, Inc. JUDGMENT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • SUPERSEDEAS BOND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT SONIC INDUSTRIES, INC'S NOTICE OF FILING OF BOND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
365 More Docket Entries
  • 09/15/2015
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by James Hawryla MeCredy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO ASSIGNED JUDGE [C.C.P. SECTION 170.6]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: I. PREVENTING SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT BY MISREPRESENTATION EN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1050; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by James Hawryla MeCredy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC593961    Hearing Date: April 6, 2021    Dept: 19

Plaintiff James Hawryla Mecredy Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint After Remittitur is DENIED.Counsel for Defendant Sonic Industries, Inc. to give notice.

I.  HISTORY OF THIS ACTION

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in its entirety and remanded the case for retrial on Plaintiff’s defamation per quod, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage claims.

With respect to the defamation claim, the Court of Appeal remanded for a new trial, ordering that the jury be instructed on a per quod theory of liability. (Id. at p. 28.) The Court of Appeal reasoned that:

We agree with Sonic that Statement No. 8 is not defamatory per se, and reverse the trial court’s order denying nonsuit as to that cause of action. We agree with Mecredy, however, that he sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for defamation per quod, and that the trial court’s refusal to instruct on that theory of liability was prejudicial error requiring remand.

(Id. at pp. 22.)

The Court of Appeal also held that the SAC, “in light of the circumstances in which the statements were made… sufficiently pleaded an action for defamation per quod” reasoning, in part, that “although the second amended complaint employed the words ‘per se,’ in substance it additionally stated a per quod cause of action.” (Id. at pp. 31-32.)

With respect to the interference with prospective economic advantage claims, the Court of Appeal agreed with Defendant Sonic that “the verdicts in Mecredy’s favor for his negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action must be reversed because the jury’s findings were based solely on his defamation per se claim at trial.” (Id. at p. 36.) The Court of Appeal held that, on retrial, Plaintiff “may assert both causes of action as supported by his defamation per quod cause of action.” (Id. at p. 40.)

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (the “Motion”).

II. GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 576, Plaintiff seeks an order granting leave to file a third amended complaint on the grounds that (1) it is in the interests of justice to allow Plaintiff to amend his defamation claim following guidance of the Court of Appeal, and (2) Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendment.

A. Threshold Procedural Requirements

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall:

(1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) 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

(3) 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.

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and 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.

Although Defendant Sonic does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court rule 3.1324, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not satisfy the requirements.

Plaintiff seeks to amend the SAC in order to “conform the complaint to the precise language of the defamatory statements, as adduced by deposition and trial testimony, and to make explicit that Plaintiff’s cause of action is brought under a defamation per quod theory, consistent with the ruling of the court of appeals” and to “rewrite[] Plaintiff’s former claim for defamation as a claim for defamation per quod, and makes changes to his intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage claims consistent with the new defamation per quod cause of action.” (James Cordes Decl. at ¶ 10.) The facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered on July 8, 2019, the date the Court of Appeal’s decision was filed, but Plaintiff did not file the Motion until February 26, 2021. The separate declaration of James Cordes does not specify any reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (See Cal. R. Ct., 3.1324(b)(4).) The separate declaration also does not specify why the amendment is necessary and proper. (See Cal. R. Ct., 3.1324(b)(2).)

Moreover, the Motion only mentions that paragraphs where the proposed additions or deletions are located, and does not include the pages and line numbers. The reference of the “red-lined” version is insufficient to satisfy the procedural requirement. (See Cal. R. Ct., 3.1324(a)(2), (3).)

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court rule 3.1324.

B. Leave to Amend

Notwithstanding the above failures, the Court proceeds to rule on the merits of the motion. The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) The court may also, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Id.)

The policy in California is that leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.) “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. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 531.) “Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

The Court agrees with Defendant Sonic that granting  Plaintiff's request for an order to amend the SAC so as defamation per quod, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage claims as alleged in the SAC. The Court of Appeal reasoned that “in light of the circumstances in which the statements were made, the second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded an action for defamation per quod” and that “although the second amended complaint employed the words ‘per se,’ in substance it additionally stated a per quod cause of action.” (COA Opinion at pp.  31-32; See also p.22)

Hence, the Court finds that an amendment to the SAC “to conform” to the Court of Appeal’s decision is wholly unnecessary.

For all of the reasons articulated above, the Court finds that leave to amend is not in the furtherance of justice and prejudicial. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff, at retrial, may seek punitive damages. Nothing in the Court of Appeal’s opinion affirmed any “dismissal” of the punitive damages claims in the SAC, nor prohibited Plaintiff from seeking such at retrial.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Sargent Aerospace, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where RBC BEARING INCORPORATED is a litigant

Latest cases where SONIC INDUSTRIES INC. is a litigant