This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/19/2020 at 00:14:08 (UTC).

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS. A. EDWARD EZOR

Case Summary

On 08/01/2017 AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against A EDWARD EZOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN and BENNY C. OSORIO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7063

  • Filing Date:

    08/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN

BENNY C. OSORIO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK A UTAH

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK FSB A FEDERAL

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

EZOR EDDIE A.

EZOR MATTHEW E.

EZOR EDWARD A.

EZOR A. EDWARD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MICHAEL & ASSOCIATES

HARVEY M. MOORE/RAY MAHDAVI

MOORE HARVEY MICHAEL

Cross Defendant Attorney

MAHDAVI RAY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY DEFENDANT A. E...)

7/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY DEFENDANT A. E...)

Request for Judicial Notice

3/30/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

2/13/2020: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

12/17/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

11/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF RAY MAHDAVI IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT [CCP 430.41]

10/21/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF RAY MAHDAVI IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT [CCP 430.41]

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 08/27/2019

8/27/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 08/27/2019

Order - ORDER COURT'S ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND DEMURRER

8/27/2019: Order - ORDER COURT'S ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND DEMURRER

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

8/29/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

8/29/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT AMERICAN EXPRESS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TH

8/13/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES BY PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT AMERICAN EXPRESS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TH

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERV

8/1/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERV

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

10/17/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DECLARATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-02-23 00:00:00

2/23/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-02-23 00:00:00

Legacy Document - CROSS-COMPL FLD- NO SUMMONS ISSUED

3/26/2018: Legacy Document - CROSS-COMPL FLD- NO SUMMONS ISSUED

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES AND DEMURRER

7/29/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES AND DEMURRER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO...)

7/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO...)

Case Management Statement

2/4/2019: Case Management Statement

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) (filed by Defendant A. Edward Ezor) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (filed by Defendant A. Edward Ezor) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant A. E...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketOrder (Court's Order re: Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (filed by Defendant A. Edward Ezor) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) (filed by Defendant A. Edward Ezor) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • DocketNotice ( of Entry of Order); Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff); American Express Centurion Bank, a Utah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2020
  • Docketat 11:04 AM in Department B; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/08/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
92 More Docket Entries
  • 12/12/2017
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by Edward A. Ezor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff); American Express Centurion Bank, a Utah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff); American Express Centurion Bank, a Utah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff); American Express Centurion Bank, a Utah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff); American Express Centurion Bank, a Utah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by American Express Bank, FSB, a federal (Plaintiff); American Express Centurion Bank, a Utah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067063    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

american express bank, fsb, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

A EDWARD EZOR aka MATTHEW E. EZOR aka EDWARD A. EZOR aka EDDIE A. EZOR,

Defendant.

Case No.: EC067063

Hearing Date: July 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for reconsideration; and motion to set aside/vacate judgment

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of the Operative Complaint and Cross-Complaint

In the complaint, Plaintiffs American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank allege that Defendant A. Edward Ezor (“Defendant”) applied for and was issued a Platinum Delta SkyMiles Credit Card, ending in 3003, for the purposes of obtaining goods and/or services, and/or cash advances from any person who accepts the card. Defendant was also issued a Platinum Card, ending in 8002. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has failed to pay back sums owing on the credit cards. The complaint, filed August 1, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) common counts: book account, account stated; (2) common counts: book account, account stated; and (3) quantum meruit – reasonable value.

On September 16, 2019, Defendant filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) against American Express Bank, FSB (“AmEx FSB”) for: (1) violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”); (3) breach of written contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) unfair business practices.

B. Relevant Background and Motions on Calendar

On August 27, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff American Express National Bank f/k/a American Express Centurion Bank, and successor by merger to, American Express Bank, FSB’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The Court also sustained AmEx FSB’s demurrer to Defendant Ezor’s cross-complaint without leave to amend as to the 1st cause of action and with leave to amend as to the 2nd cause of action.

On December 13, 2019, the Court sustained AmEx FSB’s demurrer to Defendant’s FAXC without leave to amend.

On January 10, 2020, the Judgment Pursuant to Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Order Sustaining Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint Without Leave to Amend was entered. Judgment was entered in favor of American Express National Bank f/k/a American Express Centurion Bank, and successor by merger to American Express Bank, FSB ("American Express") and against Defendant in the principal sum of $67,417.76, plus court costs of $1,160.00, for a total judgment of $68,577.76. The Judgment states that Defendant shall take nothing from American Express by way of his FAXC, which was dismissed with prejudice.

There are currently 2 motions on calendar.

On December 23, 2019, Defendant Ezor filed a motion for reconsideration. On March 30, 2020, American Express filed an opposition brief.

On January 30, 2020, Defendant filed motion to set aside/vacate judgment. On March 30, 2020, American Express filed an opposition brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

In connection with both opposition briefs, American Express requests judicial notice of the January 10, 2020 Judgment, the December 13, 2019 Court Order (re demurer to the FAXC), and the August 27, 2019 Court Order (re MSJ and demurrer to the initial cross-complaint).

The requests are granted. (Evid. Code, §452(d).)

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Defendant moves for reconsideration pursuant to CCP §1008 but fails to state which subsection he is relying on. He argues that this Court violated substantive and procedural due process rights by not allowing Defendant to present his valid causes of action in his FAXC or to let him file a further amended cross-complaint. Based on his declaration, Defendant appears to be seeking reconsideration of the demurrer and that it be overruled. (Def.’s Decl., ¶3.)

As judgment was entered prior to the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, the Court notes that it is divested of jurisdiction to hear the motion. (Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facades Unlimited, Inc.

However, the Court will briefly address the merits of the motion for reconsideration as it was filed on December 23, 2019, prior to the entry of Judgment on January 10, 2020. (The Court notes that the proposed judgment was lodged with the Court on December 19, 2019.)

CCP §1008(a) states: “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (CCP §1008(a).)[1]

In his moving papers, Defendant fails to provide any new or different facts, circumstances, or law such that granting this motion for reconsideration would be proper. At most, he argues that the Court should have let him amend his cross-complaint and that sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend was unfair. However, these arguments alone do not satisfy the requirement of CCP §1008. Rather, the Court considered the sufficiency of Defendant’s initial cross-complaint and sustained without leave to amend the 1st cause of action and sustained with leave to amend the 2nd cause of action. Despite having sustained the demurer to the 1st cause of action without leave to amend, Defendant nevertheless alleged it again in his FAXC, which was improper. As to the 2nd cause of action, the Court gave Defendant the opportunity to amend the cause of action, but Defendant failed to allege facts to support the cause of action and failed to provide any further facts in his opposition brief or at the December 13, 2019 hearing on the matter. With regard to the 3rd to 5th causes of action, the Court noted that Defendant added these causes of action without the Court’s authorization or order, and thus the causes of action were improperly pled. In Defendant’s current moving papers, Defendant has not provided any arguments, law, or evidence showing there are any new or different facts, law, or circumstances to warrant granting a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the FAXC.

Also, while Defendant has provided a declaration in support of the motion, he has not fully complied with subsection (a)’s requirements regarding the affidavit. (CCP §1008(a) [“The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”].)

Thus, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.

B. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Defendant moves to set aside/vacate the Judgment entered in this action on January 13, 2020, arguing that it was prematurely entered as a result of the pending motion for reconsideration. He argues that the Court should have first ruled upon and waited until the hearing on the motion for reconsideration before entering judgment.

On December 13, 2019, the Court sustained Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant’s FAXC without leave to amend, noted that summary judgment had previously been granted in Plaintiff’s favor, and expressly ordered Plaintiff to file a proposed judgment.

Defendant has not provided any case law or legal authority showing that the entry of judgment was improper despite the pending motion for reconsideration. While trial courts should not enter judgment while a timely motion for reconsideration is pending, the trial court may enter judgment where the court intends to deny the motion for reconsideration by implication. (Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facades Unlimited, Inc. .4th 1477, 1483.) As discussed above, the Court does not find Defendant’s motion for reconsideration to be meritorious. Based on the ruling on this motion and the motion for reconsideration, the entry of judgment did not cause any prejudice to the parties.

The Court denies the motion to set aside/vacate the Judgment.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

Defendant’s motion to set aside the Judgment is denied.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this ruling. 


[1] It does not appear that CCP §1008(b) would be the proper legal basis for this motion, as subsection (b) is regarding a subsequent application for the same relief made by the party who originally made an application. At issue here is the demurrer filed by American Express against Defendant’s FAXC, such that Defendant was not the moving party of the underlying demurrer. Thus, subsection (b) does not apply.

Case Number: EC067063    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

american express bank, fsb, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

A EDWARD EZOR aka MATTHEW E. EZOR aka EDWARD A. EZOR aka EDDIE A. EZOR,

Defendant.

Case No.: EC067063

Hearing Date: December 13, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Demurrer to first amended cross-complaint

BACKGROUND

  1. Allegations of the Operative Complaint and Cross-Complaint

    In the complaint, Plaintiffs American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant A. Edward Ezor (“Defendant”) applied for and was issued a Platinum Delta SkyMiles Credit Card, ending in 3003, for the purposes of obtaining goods and/or services, and/or cash advances from any person who accepts the card. Defendant was also issued a Platinum Card, ending in 8002. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has failed to pay back sums owing on the credit cards. The complaint, filed August 1, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) common counts: book account, account stated; (2) common counts: book account, account stated; and (3) quantum meruit – reasonable value.

    On September 16, 2019, Defendant filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”) against American Express Bank, FSB (“AmEx FSB”) for: (1) violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (2) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”); (3) breach of written contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) unfair business practices.

  2. Demurrer

    On October 21, 2019, AmEx FSB filed a demurrer to Defendant’s FAXC as to all causes of action arguing that they fail to state sufficient facts against Plaintiff and the claims are uncertain.

    Defendant filed an opposition brief on December 2, 2019. AmEx FSB filed a reply brief on December 3, 2019.

    REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    AmEx FSB requests judicial notice of the Notice Entry of Order filed on August 29, 2019 and the accompanying minute order dated August 27, 2019; and the initial cross-complaint filed by Defendant. The requests are granted. (Evid. Code, §452(d).)

    DISCUSSION

  1. Violation of FDCPA (1st cause of action)

    In the Court’s prior demurrer order issued on August 27, 2019, the Court sustained without leave to amend the 1st cause of action for violation of FDCPA. (See RJN, Exs. 1-2.)

    Nevertheless, Defendant failed to remove this cause of action when he filed the amended cross-complaint.

    Thus, AmEx FSB’s demurrer to the 1st cause of action alleged in the FAXC is sustained once again without leave to amend.

  2. Violation of the Rosenthal Act (2nd cause of action)

    The Rosenthal Act was enacted to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts. (See Civ. Code §1788.1(b).) The Rosenthal Act incorporates the FDCPA standards. (Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 29, 36; Civ. Code §1788.17.) As discussed above, the FDCPA generally prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. (Alborzian, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at 36; 15 U.S.C. §1692e.) “Whether a debt collection effort entails false representations, threats, or deception is judged objectively from the perspective of the ‘least sophisticated debtor.’” (Alborzian, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at 37.)

    AmEx FSB demurs to the 2nd cause of action in the FAXC, arguing that it is wholly uncertain and vague, and fails to state sufficient facts against it.

    The 2nd cause of action incorporates the prior allegations. (FAXC, ¶13.) Defendant then alleges that AmEx FSB violated the Rosenthal Act by doing unlawful collection activity and otherwise acting illegally. (Id., ¶14.) Defendant seeks general damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, and other equitable relief. (Id., ¶15.)

    The 2nd cause of action in the FAXC is essentially identical to that of the initial cross-complaint. Thus, the allegations once again fail to plead facts supporting this cause of action.

    Also, Defendant attempted to plead the 2nd cause of action by incorporating all prior paragraphs, which the Court previously raised as an issue that should be cured in the amended cross-complaint.  A civil plaintiff or cross-complainant may, for the sake of convenience, incorporate by reference previous portions of the pleading for informational purposes only.  (Cal-West Nat. Bank v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 96, 101.)  Further, CCP §425.10(a)(1) requires the causes of action to contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”  Here, Defendant did not comply with the requirement in CCP §425.10 when he pleaded the 2nd cause of action because the claim did not contain the statement of facts constituting the cause of action.  Instead, he incorporated all prior facts into the cause of action and then referred to prior allegations without any specificity when pleading the essential elements of each cause of action.  As a result, Defendant did not merely incorporate portions for informational purposes.  Further, Defendant imposed the burden on the Court and AmEx FSB to find the facts that state the cause of action in another, unidentified portion of the pleadings in order to determine whether Defendant pleaded the essential elements of each cause of action. Thus, the demurrer may also be sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

    Next, AmEx FSB argues that to the extent that Defendant’s cause of action is based on AmEx FSB’s alleged reporting of false and misleading information on various consumer credit card reports, this is preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). (FAXC, ¶9(vii); see Brown v. Mortensen (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1052, 1064-65.) To the extent Defendant’s damages are premised on this theory alone, the Court had previously allowed leave to amend for Defendant to allege an alternate theory of harm, if any. However, in the FAXC, Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order to amend the pleading to allege a separate theory of damages so that this cause of action would be viable.

    In the opposition, Defendant only argues that the allegations are sufficient for notice pleading and that a liberal standard should be applied to allow amendment. However, the Court’s prior order apprised Defendant of what defects existed in his cross-complaint and thereafter provided Defendant with an opportunity to amend his pleading. Despite this opportunity to amend, Defendant failed to add facts to properly amend the pleading.

    Thus, the demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  3. 3rd to 5th causes of action

    AmEx FSB demurs to the 3rd to 5th causes of action for breach of written contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair business practices, arguing these additional causes of action were not authorized by the Court’s prior order on the demurrer to the initial cross-complaint.

    A plaintiff is required to obtain leave of the trial court to add a claim against defendant in an amended complaint. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1022-23 [sustaining the cause of action for unfair business practices on the ground that plaintiff did not request leave to add this cause of action with the court’s order granting leave to amend the original complaint].) The plaintiff may amend his or her complaint only as authorized by the court’s order. (Id. at 1023.) The plaintiff may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so, unless the new cause of action is within the scope of the order granting leave to amend. (Id.)

    The Court only granted Defendant leave to amend the 2nd cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Act in connection with Plaintiff’s demurrer to the initial cross-complaint. Further, these new causes of action are not within the scope of the Court’s demurrer order granting leave to amend the initial cross-complaint. Thus, the last 3 causes of action were improperly added by Defendant without leave of Court.

    As such, the demurrer as to these causes of action may be sustained.

    CONCLUSION AND ORDER

    AmEx FSB’s demurrer to Defendant’s FAXC is sustained without leave to amend.

    Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.