On 03/23/2018 CHRISTINE M WEBER filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and GERALD ROSENBERG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****9036
03/23/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARC D. GROSS
GERALD ROSENBERG
WEBER CHRISTINE M.
TAYLOR JAMES BRUCE
BURCH WENDY
TAYLOR BRUCE
FISHER HOWARD S.
FISHER HOWARD SCOTT
BALL LAW FIRM THE
MILLER DAVID SCOTT
DAGRELLA LAW FIRM P.C.
SEVERO MICHAEL VINCENT
3/23/2018: Complaint
4/13/2018: Legacy Document
7/19/2018: Declaration
7/19/2018: Notice of Motion
8/6/2018: Substitution of Attorney
9/20/2018: Minute Order
10/11/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing
11/14/2018: Reply
11/27/2018: Notice
4/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
4/26/2019: Notice
4/29/2019: Notice of Lodging
5/2/2019: Minute Order
5/3/2019: Notice of Ruling
6/12/2019: Minute Order
6/17/2019: Substitution of Attorney
6/27/2019: Stipulation and Order
7/17/2019: Notice
Notice (OF ENTRY OF - OTHER ORDER STIP RE TRIAL DATES AND OTHER MATTERS); Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)
Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION RE TRIAL DATES AND PROPOSED ORDER THEREON); Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff); JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR (Defendant); WENDY BURCH (Defendant)
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by WENDY BURCH (Defendant)
at 10:30 AM in Department R, Marc D. Gross, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held
Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)
Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk
at 11:30 AM in Department R, Marc D. Gross, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review
Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Party's Request for Informal D...)); Filed by Clerk
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR (Defendant)
Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR (Defendant)
Answer; Filed by WENDY BURCH (Defendant)
Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)
Ntc and Acknowledgement of Receipt; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Summons; Filed by Plaintiff
Complaint; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk
Complaint Filed
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Case Number: SC129036 Hearing Date: August 10, 2020 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Christine M. Weber v. James Bruce Taylor, Case No. SC129036
Hearing Date August 10, 2020
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to add a new cause of action for securities fraud. The proposed amendment does not add new defendants or factual allegations. On July 7, 2020 the court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion. The court did not adopt the tentative to allow defendants to file an opposition by July 17, 2020. Defendants failed to comply with this due date, filing an opposition on July 20, 2020. In the interests of justice, the court will consider this untimely opposition but warns defendants that further late filings will be disregarded.
There is a strong public policy in California in favor of amending pleadings if the non-amending party is not prejudiced. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. A motion for leave to amend can be denied if the moving party has delayed unreasonable in seeking to amend, or if the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action. Id., Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.
Plaintiff argues there will be no prejudice to defendants if the motion is granted, since a trial date has not been scheduled, there are no new factual allegations in the proposed amendment and no depositions have been taken. Defendants argue the motion should be denied since the action was initially filed in 2018. Additionally, defendants allege the proposed amendment would cause prejudice by expanding the issues and requiring additional discovery. Plaintiff adequately explained the delay, attributing it to information discovered in February 2020. Further, the court disagrees that any substantial prejudice will result, given that the new claim relies on the same facts as the initial complaint and no trial date is scheduled. GRANTED.
DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND TO APPEAR REMOTELY. LA COURT CONNECT IS NOW AVAILABLE.
Case Number: SC129036 Hearing Date: July 07, 2020 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Christine M. Weber v. James Bruce Taylor, Case No. SC129036
Hearing Date July 7, 2020
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (UNOPPOSED)
Background/Analysis
There is a strong public policy in California in favor of amending pleadings if the non-amending party is not prejudiced. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.
Plaintiff seeks to add a new cause of action for securities fraud. Motion at page 6. Defendant does not oppose the motion. Notice of non-opposition at pg. 1. There is no evidence suggesting the amendment would prejudice defendant.
GRANTED.
BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AT COURT AND TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL WHENEVER POSSIBLE.