This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/18/2021 at 17:33:57 (UTC).

AMELIA A. YUHAS, ET AL. VS GIZMO MEDIA LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/15/2019 AMELIA A YUHAS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GIZMO MEDIA LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0169

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

YUHAS AMELIA A.

YUHAS VINCENT C. JR.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

KHAN NAYEEM AHMED

GIZMO MEDIA LLC

Cross Defendants

PERSONAL MAIL BOX LLC

ROES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

RICHARDSON KELLY

YERITSYAN TAMARA A.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BREWSTER DAVID ALAN

PAUL CHRISTIAN F

TRUTANICH DOMINIC J

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

11/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DEEM DEFENDANTS PRIOR ANSWER AS THEIR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/3/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DEEM DEFENDANTS PRIOR ANSWER AS THEIR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

11/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Amended Complaint

10/22/2021: Amended Complaint

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS)

10/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS)

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

9/23/2021: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KHAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

10/7/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KHAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

10/12/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Request for Judicial Notice

10/12/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Dismissal

8/2/2021: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: SCHEDULING)

8/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: SCHEDULING)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC) (IF NOT COMPLETED THROU...)

8/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC) (IF NOT COMPLETED THROU...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

8/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC) (IF NOT COMPLETED THROU...)

8/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC) (IF NOT COMPLETED THROU...)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/16/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/16/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/16/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/29/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

72 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/07/2021
  • Hearing12/07/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • Hearing12/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Trial Readiness Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketWitness List ((Joint)); Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Gizmo Media LLC (Cross-Complainant); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketSTIPULATION AND ORDER TO DEEM DEFENDANTS? PRIOR ANSWER AS THEIR RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS? THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
109 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • DocketDefendants Gizmo Media, LLC and Nayeem Ahmed Khan's Answer to Complaint; Filed by Gizmo Media LLC (Defendant); Nayeem Ahmed Khan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Amelia A. Yuhas (Plaintiff); Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19TRCV00169 Hearing Date: October 19, 2021 Dept: M

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Superior\r\n Court of California

\r\n

County\r\n of Los Angeles

\r\n

Southwest\r\n District

\r\n

Torrance\r\n Dept. M

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

AMELIA\r\n A. YUHAS, et al.,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

Plaintiffs,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Case No.:

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

19TRCV00169

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

[Tentative]\r\n RULING

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

GIZMO\r\n MEDIA LLC, et al.,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: October 19, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nParties: Defendant Nayeem Khan

\r\n\r\n

Responding\r\nParty: Plaintiffs Amelia A. Yuhas and Vincent C. Yuhas, Jr.

\r\n\r\n

Motion\r\nfor Judgment on the Pleadings

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court considered the moving, opposition,\r\nand reply papers.

\r\n\r\n

RULING

\r\n\r\n

The motion for judgment on the\r\npleadings is GRANTED WITH 5 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to allegations regarding\r\ntransfer/assignment.

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

On February 15, 2019, plaintiffs\r\nAmelia A. Yuhas and Vincent C. Yuhas Jr. filed a complaint against Gizmo Media\r\nLLC and Nayeem Ahmed Khan for (1) breach of contract [against Gizmo only] and\r\ncommon counts – account stated [against both defendants]. Plaintiffs seek the same amount of damages,\r\n$36,167, for both claims. Plaintiffs\r\nallege that a Business Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions was\r\nmade between plaintiffs and Gizmo Media LLC. \r\nDefendant refused to perform under the agreement by stopping payment on\r\n19 postdated checks. Plaintiffs are\r\nentitled to recover $1,800 held in escrow and $867 in deferred commission\r\npayments and $5,000 in closing costs.

\r\n\r\n

On January 10, 2020, plaintiffs\r\nfiled a FAC.

\r\n\r\n

On February 28, 2020, the court\r\ngranted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

\r\n\r\n

On March 13, 2020, the court\r\ngranted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a SAC.

\r\n\r\n

On March 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed\r\na SAC for (1) breach of contract, (2) money had and received, (3) breach of\r\noral contract, (4) conversion of personal property.

\r\n\r\n

On April 24, 2020, defendants filed\r\nsubstitutions of attorney.

\r\n\r\n

On August 20, 2020, Gizmo Media\r\nfiled a cross-complaint against Personal Mail Box, LLC for breach of contract.

\r\n\r\n

On August 2, 2021, Gizmo Media\r\ndismissed its cross-complaint.

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL AUTHORITY

\r\n\r\n

CCP § 438 states, in relevant\r\npart: “(b)(1) A party may move for\r\njudgment on the pleadings. . . . (c)(1) \r\nThe motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the\r\nfollowing grounds: (A) If the moving\r\nparty is a plaintiff, that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute\r\na cause or cause of action against the defendant and the answer does not state\r\nfacts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that\r\neither of the following conditions exist: \r\n. . . . (ii) The complaint does not states facts sufficient to\r\nconstitute a cause of action against that defendant. . . . (d) The grounds for\r\nmotion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged\r\npleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial\r\nnotice. . . .”

\r\n\r\n

CCP §439(b) states: “A party moving for judgment on a pleading\r\nthat has been amended after a motion for judgment on the pleadings on an\r\nearlier version of the pleadings was granted shall not move for judgment on any\r\nportion of the pleadings on grounds that could have been raised by a motion for\r\njudgment on the pleadings as to the earlier version of the pleadings.”

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nNayeem Khan requests judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs’ 1st\r\nand 2nd causes of action in the SAC on the grounds that the SAC\r\nfails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Khan\r\nand plaintiffs lack standing to sue under the contract.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\ncontends that neither plaintiffs nor defendant Khan are named parties to the\r\nsubject contract. Thus, defendant\r\nargues, plaintiffs have not pled the elements for either breach of contract or\r\ncommon counts. Defendant asserts that\r\nExh. A, attached to the SAC, shows that the Business Purchase Agreement and\r\nJoint Escrow Instructions is between Gizmo Media, LLC and Personal Mailbox,\r\nLLC, and neither plaintiffs or Khan are named parties. Rather, Amelia Yuhas signed for Personal\r\nMailbox, LLC as an “Authorized Signer.”

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nalso argues that the 2nd cause of action for common count is\r\ndefective because plaintiffs have not alleged a statement of indebtedness in a\r\ncertain sum. See Farmers Ins.\r\nExchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 445, 460.

\r\n\r\n

In\r\nopposition, plaintiffs argue that these issues were raised and already resolved\r\nby an earlier motion for judgment on the pleadings (filed on November 19, 2019). At the hearing on January 20, 2020, the court\r\ngranted defendant Khan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to\r\namend, finding that the allegations were insufficient to support a claim\r\nagainst individual defendant Khan. Plaintiffs\r\nadded alter ego allegations at para. 9 in the FAC and SAC.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs\r\nalso contend that defendant failed to meet and confer as required under CCP\r\n§439(a)(2). In the reply, defendant\r\nargues that this section does not apply because the motion was filed within 30\r\ndays of trial.

\r\n\r\n

In\r\nthe motion, defendant does not argue that the alter ego allegations are\r\ninsufficient. Rather, defendant makes\r\nthe same argument as in his motion filed in November 2019. The court disregards any new arguments raised\r\nin the reply. As to the argument\r\nregarding standing, plaintiffs request the opportunity to amend to add\r\nallegations as to assignment or transfer of Personal Mail Box’s rights to\r\nplaintiff Yuhas.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nmotion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs\r\nare ordered to give notice of the ruling.

'

Case Number: 19TRCV00169    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: SWM

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

CAREY F. MCLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

19TRCV00169

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

KATHLEEN MCMANUS-PELOSO,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: June 29, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Carey F. McLaughlin aka Carey F. McManus

Responding Party: Defendant Kathleen McManus-Peloso

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damages

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file her FAC within five days.

BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2019, plaintiff Carey F. McLaughlin filed a complaint against Kathleen McManus-Peloso for (1) breach of promissory note, (2) breach of deed of trust, and (3) breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 7, 2020, the court overruled defendant’s demurrer.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, 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.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(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 CRC Rule 3.1324(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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has 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.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests leave to file a first amended complaint to remove redundant paragraphs in the 3rd cause of action, to update plaintiff’s place of residence, to add allegations of a third refinance to support the 3rd cause of action, and to add a cause of action for constructive fraud and a claim for punitive damages.

The complaint alleges that in October 2007, defendant (daughter) approached plaintiff (mother) and requested that plaintiff assist her in acquiring real property at 25127 Oak Street, Lomita, which she was renting with her brother and was going into foreclosure, by way of a private loan between plaintiff and defendant. The owner agreed to sell the property to defendant on a short sale for the outstanding mortgage of $533,000. Defendant told plaintiff that she was able to obtain a mortgage for $333,000 but needed assistance with $200,000. Plaintiff agreed to loan defendant $200,000 and defendant agreed to pay back the loan with interest after a few years’ time.

The complaint further alleges that on December 3, 2007, plaintiff’s bank transferred $100,000 from plaintiff’s retirement account to defendant’s account. On February 5, 2008, plaintiff’s bank transferred $100,000 to defendant’s account. Defendant purchased the property on February 8, 2008. On March 8, 2008, defendant executed a Note Secured by Deed of Trust stating that defendant would pay to plaintiff $200,000 with interest at the rate of 4%. The loan was due and payable at the sale or transfer of the property. On April 10, 2008, defendant refinanced the loan in the amount of $125,000 for a revolving credit line.

The complaint further alleges that on June 23, 2009, plaintiff and defendant executed a second Promissory Note, amending and replacing the 2008 Note wherein defendant promised to paly plaintiff $200,000 at the rate of 2% upon sale of the property. Defendant executed a Deed of Trust. Defendant never recorded the Deed of Trust. On November 13, 2013, defendant refinanced the property and a deed of trust in the amount of $435,000 was recorded. Defendant sold the property in August 2018 for $765,000, without plaintiff’s knowledge and did not pay plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the 2009 note. Plaintiff and defendant have been estranged since around the time the 2009 Note and Deed of Trust were executed. In July 2019, plaintiff discovered that defendant sold the property.

In opposition, defendant reiterates her argument made in the demurrer that plaintiff’s “entire case” is time barred by the statute of limitations because on January 16, 2015, plaintiff left a voicemail stating, “it’s imperative that unless you want a whole bunch of trouble that you pick up the phone and tell me what you are doing with my retirement money” and that “you better be looking over your shoulder because you are in so much trouble and we will file on Monday and you can end up in jail” but she did not file a complaint until more than four years later.

In its ruling on the demurrer, the court had found that the complaint was not clearly and affirmatively barred by the statute of limitations. The court finds that plaintiff has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324. In light of the liberal policy in allowing amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 19TRCV00169    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

AMELIA A. YUHAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

19TRCV00169

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

GIZMO MEDIA LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 13, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Amelia A. Yuhas and Vincent C. Yuhas Jr.

Responding Party: None

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to file their Second Amended Complaint within five days.

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2019, plaintiffs Amelia A. Yuhas and Vincent C. Yuhas Jr. filed a complaint against Gizmo Media LLC and Nayeem Ahmed Khan for (1) breach of contract [against Gizmo only] and common counts – account stated [against both defendants]. Plaintiffs seek the same amount of damages, $36,167, for both claims. Plaintiffs allege that a Business Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions was made between plaintiffs and Gizmo Media LLC. Defendant refused to perform under the agreement by stopping payment on 19 postdated checks. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $1,800 held in escrow and $867 in deferred commission payments and $5,000 in closing costs.

On January 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a FAC.

On February 28, 2020, the court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, 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.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(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 CRC Rule 3.1324(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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has 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.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request leave to file a second amended complaint to add causes of action for money had and received, conversion of personal property, and breach of oral contract against defendant Nayeem Ahmed Khan.

Plaintiffs assert that on October 28, 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel demanded that defendant Khan return plaintiffs’ leased Konica copier, which plaintiffs were forced to purchase from the leasing company. Plaintiffs contend that although Khan had orally promised to plaintiffs that he would take over the remaining payments on the lease, he failed to do so. Plaintiffs assert that Khan has refused to return the copier.

In light of the liberal policy in allowing amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 19TRCV00169    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

AMELIA A. YUHAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

19TRCV00169

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

GIZMO MEDIA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 28, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendants attorney BWA Law Group APC and Jeremy J. Alberts, Esq.

Responding Party: None

(1) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

(2) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motions are GRANTED. The court orders that the attorney is relieved as counsel of record for Gizmo Media LLC and Nayeem Ahmed Khan, effective upon the filing of the proofs of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” (Judicial Council form MC-053) upon the clients.

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2019, plaintiffs Amelia A. Yuhas and Vincent C. Yuhas Jr. filed a complaint against Gizmo Media LLC and Nayeem Ahmed Khan for (1) breach of contract [against Gizmo only] and common counts – account stated [against both defendants]. Plaintiffs seek the same amount of damages, $36,167, for both claims. Plaintiffs allege that a Business Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions was made between plaintiffs and Gizmo Media LLC. Defendant refused to perform under the agreement by stopping payment on 19 postdated checks. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $1,800 held in escrow and $867 in deferred commission payments and $5,000 in closing costs.

On February 18, 2020, the court granted defense counsel’s ex parte application for an order shortening time for hearing on defense counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal. App. 2d 398.

CRC Rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

DISCUSSION

Defendants Gizmo Media LLC and Nayeem Ahmed Khan’s attorney of record, BWA Law Group APC and Jeremy J. Alberts, Esq., seeks to be relieved as counsel.

Counsel states in his declaration that there has been a breakdown in communication between attorney and clients that precludes attorney’s effective representation of client.

The court finds that the attorney has served the clients by mail at the clients’ last known address and submitted a declaration and supplemental declaration establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, have been satisfied. The court also finds that the attorney has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney has brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) instead of filing a consent under § 284(1).

The motion is GRANTED.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.