KC INVESTMENT COMPANY VS KUNG FU OF GOLDEN DRAGON, LLC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC124337    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

KC Investment Company v. Kung Fu of Golden Dragon, LLC, Case No. SC124337

Hearing Date: March 5, 2020

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Open Discovery

This began as an unlawful detainer action based on nonpayment of rent at a commercial property. Defendants vacated by August 2015. As possession is no longer at issue, this became a breach of contract action.

Defendants allege in March 2019 the parties reached an agreement that plaintiff would dismiss the action, contingent on defendants presenting financial documents showing they were judgment proof. Defendants allege they produced the requested documents, but plaintiff refused to dismiss the action.

Trial has been continued to May 18, 2020. The court granted defendants leave to amend their answer with new defenses related to the March 2019 settlement. The discovery cut-off date, based on the original trial, has passed. Defendants seek to reopen discovery, so they may gather information and documents necessary to prove their new defenses.

A court may, in its discretion, reopen discovery upon motion by any party. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 2024.050. In exercising its discretion, the court will consider the necessity of discovery, the diligence of the party seeking discovery, any likelihood that allowing discovery will result in further delays of trial, and the extent to which trial has already been delayed.

Defendants diligently sought to reopen discovery by meeting and conferring with opposing counsel immediately after the court continued trial. Reopening discovery is not likely to cause trial to be further delayed and is necessary since defendants seek to add new defenses in their third amended answer. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. GRANTED.

Case Number: SC124337    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: P

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Department P

TENTATIVE RULING

KC Investment Company v. Kung Fu of Golden Dragon, LLC et al., Case no. SC124337

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

Hearing Date: December 17, 2019

This originated as an unlawful detainer action and has converted to a breach of contract case. Plaintiff and defendants allegedly agreed in mediation that plaintiff would dismiss the action once defendants produced documents showing they were judgment-proof. Defendants allege plaintiff refused to dismiss the action after production of the documents, violating the agreement. Defendants seek leave to amend the answer to add a new affirmative defense of settlement.

A trial court may, in its discretion, allow amendment to any pleading – including an answer – in the furtherance of justice and on such terms as may be proper. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §473(a). The public policy favoring amendment is especially strong when dealing with amendments to answers. Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.

Defendants argue they will be unable to present a complete defense at trial if they cannot add this affirmative defense. Additionally, they argue they could not have raised this defense in an earlier pleading because the factual basis for the defense did not arise until June 27, 2019.

Trial has been continued to 5/18/2020. Plaintiff argues there was no settlement agreement; defendant argues otherwise. This is a factual dispute and is not a proper basis for denying the motion. Granting this motion does not mean defendant’s affirmative defense succeeds, only that it may be presented at trial. There is a strong public policy in favor of allowing a defendant to present all colorable affirmative defenses at trial. Granting this motion does not conflict with the court’s prior ruling denying plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint, since different questions of law and fact were at issue previously. GRANTED. Defendant to amend within 15 days.