On 05/01/2018 LORENZO CUEVAS filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ANA B APARICIO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
LORI ANN FOURNIER
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
APARICIO ANA B. AN INDIVIDUAL
MORALES LEONARDO AN INDIVIDUAL
MORALES OSCAR LEONARDO
APARICIO ANA B.
APARICIO ANA B
CUEVAS SANDRA AN INDIVIDUAL
CUEVAS CESAR AN INDIVIDUAL
GASTELUM OMAR INC. LAW OFFICES OF
KROG TIFFANY ADELL
DIJULIO LAW GROUP
6/1/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
9/6/2018: Minute Order
9/6/2018: Notice of Motion
11/6/2018: Case Management Statement
11/13/2018: Minute Order
2/22/2019: Minute Order
3/1/2019: Request for Dismissal
4/23/2019: Minute Order
5/8/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene
6/18/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
6/18/2019: Minute Order
at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Order (re: hearing of 6/18/19); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Reply (INTERVENOR OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES? REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO INTERVENE; DECLARATION OF TIFFANY KROG); Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (Plaintiff Lorenzo Cuevas' Opposition to Intervenor Oscar Leonardo Morales' Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by LORENZO CUEVAS (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Leave to Intervene; Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding filing/serving a first amended cross complaint/answer/responsive pleading thereto) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by ANA B. APARICIO (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LORENZO CUEVAS (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO ANA B. APARICIO ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC067104 Hearing Date: December 19, 2019 Dept: SEC
CUEVAS v. APARICIO
CASE NO.: VC067104
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Opposing Party to give Notice.
California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘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.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (emphasis added.) (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)
Notwithstanding the liberality associated with Motions for Leave to File an Amended pleading, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. Plaintiff seeks to make the following changes: (1) add OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES as a defendant to this action once again; (2) add specific facts that show that Defendants APARICIO and MORALES made false representations pertaining to the transaction involving the Subject Property; (3) add specific facts that show Defendants APARICIO and MORALES concealed their intention from Plaintiff and the SANDOVALS; (4) add specific facts which show that MORALES was heavily involved in the negotiation of the transaction, was present at all meetings, knew that Lorenzo and Ana were the true owners of the Subject Property, but failed to notify Lorenzo of the transaction; and (5) add facts to show that MORALES was not a bona fide purchaser. (See Gastelum Decl., ¶2.)
OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES was originally named as an individual defendant in this action. On October 9, 2018, the Court: GRANTED MORALES’s Motion to Strike punitive damages without leave to amend; SUSTAINED MORALES’s Demurrer without leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and rescission of sale; and OVERRULED as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief. On the same date that this Order was issued, October 9, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed MORALES from the instant action without prejudice.
Over a year after the Court’s ruling on MORALES’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike, Plaintiff now seeks to reallege facts and causes of action that were already substantively adjudicated.
The Motion is denied.