On 10/17/2016 JANOS HASULYO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GEORGE GONZALEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
FARMERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
XCHANGE LEASING LLC
LAW OFFICES OF ROB D. CUCHER
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
OESTERREICH THOMAS G. ESQ.
7/8/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend
7/17/2019: Notice of Joinder
7/30/2019: Minute Order
5/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
6/1/2018: Minute Order
9/27/2018: Legacy Document
10/10/2018: Motion for Order
12/5/2018: Motion for Reconsideration
12/13/2018: Minute Order
2/4/2019: Notice of Ruling
2/5/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/8/2019: Minute Order
11/1/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (First Amended Complaint) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: (Status Of Arbitration) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint;...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDefendant Xchange Leasing LLC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint; Filed by XCHANGE LEASING LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Joinder (Name Extension) (in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend); Filed by Farmers Specialty Insurance Company (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Jordan McCrary); Filed by XCHANGE LEASING LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Maribel Farris (Defendant); Annette Allen (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: (Status Of Arbitration) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Status Of Arbitration)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Janos Hasuyo (Legacy Party); Janos Hasulyo (Plaintiff); Lili Hasulyo (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Janos Hasuyo (Legacy Party); Janos Hasulyo (Plaintiff); Lili Hasulyo (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 97; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-04-02 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Janos Hasulyo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Janos Hasulyo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAENT FOR NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC636176 Hearing Date: August 03, 2020 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, August 3, 2020
Department B Calendar No. 9
Janos Hasulyo, et al. v. George Gonzalez, et al.
Janos Hasulyo, et al.’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint
Janos Hasulyo, et al.’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint is granted.
The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. Cal. Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.
The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.
Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a): A motion for leave to amend must: “(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.”
Here, Plaintiffs adequately complied with Rule 3.1324(a). Plaintiffs did not set forth the additions and deletions by page, paragraph, and line number. However, Plaintiffs did provide a “red-lined” copy of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC’) from which the additions and deletions can easily be gleaned. (Plaintiffs’ Ex. A.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs have substantially complied with Rule 3.1324(a).
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) also requires that the moving party submit a separate declaration specifying:
“(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.”
Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration setting forth facts meeting the elements of Rule 3.1324(b)(1) to (4) with respect to allegations and claims asserted against Defendants. (Decl., Gabor Szabo, ¶¶ 5-9.)
Non-party Xchange Leasing, LLC filed an opposition to this motion. However, this entity is no longer a party Defendant named in the proposed FAC. This party is involved in an underlying arbitration action with Plaintiffs. Xchange Leasing, LLC lacks standing to oppose this motion.
Defendants Farmers, Farris, and Allen also opposed this motion. These Defendants fail to provide grounds to deny this motion. Defendants fail to establish undue prejudice if the motion is granted. Defendants also argue that the proposed FAC includes an improper claim for punitive damages. However, “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is granted.
Plaintiffs are ordered to file the FAC within five days of this date. The FAC is deemed served as to the parties who have already appeared in this action upon the filing of the FAC.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases