This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/25/2019 at 07:44:24 (UTC).

MARK P. P. IKE, TRUSTEE OF MARK PAUL IKE TRUST, U/D/T 6/24/95 VS TRICOLOR AUTO GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/14/2019 MARK P P IKE, TRUSTEE OF MARK PAUL IKE TRUST, U/D/T 6/24/95 filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TRICOLOR AUTO GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6750

  • Filing Date:

    05/14/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

IKE TRUSTEE OF MARK PAUL IKE TRUST U/D/T MARK P. P.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CHU DANIEL

TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA AUTO GROUP LLC DBA GANAS AUTO A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

TRICOLOR AUTO GROUP LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

GANAS HOLDINGS LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

RUMM JAMES

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SWEARINGEN JAMES L.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

9/20/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

9/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Case Management Statement

9/9/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

8/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 08/27/2019

8/27/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 08/27/2019

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SET ASIDE DEFAULTS AND VACATE HEARINGS 0N ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE AND PROPOSED ORDER

8/27/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SET ASIDE DEFAULTS AND VACATE HEARINGS 0N ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE AND PROPOSED ORDER

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

9/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

Case Management Statement

9/5/2019: Case Management Statement

Answer - ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/5/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE AS T...)

8/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE AS T...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE AS T...) OF 08/02/2019

8/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE AS T...) OF 08/02/2019

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JAMES F. RUMM

7/16/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JAMES F. RUMM

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/19/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/20/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Cross-Complaint

7/1/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer

7/1/2019: Answer

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/26/2020
  • Hearing10/26/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • Hearing10/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • Hearing03/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • Hearing03/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default Judgment) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (Failure to File Proof of Service as to all named Cross-Defendants) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Tricolor Auto Group, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Tricolor California Auto Group, LLC dba Ganas Auto, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Ganas Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
18 More Docket Entries
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Mark P. P. Ike, Trustee of Mark Paul Ike Trust, U/D/T 6/24/95 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6750    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: 74

*******6750 IKE vs TRICOLOR AUTO GROUP, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 10 days.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code ; 452(c), (d).) However, the Court will not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the court documents. Plaintiff’s objections to the RJN are overruled and not in proper format per the Rules of Court.

CCP ;473(a)(1) states: “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.”

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial 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 where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

The Court finds the procedural requirements of CRC 3.1324, especially in light of the James F. Rumm’s supplemental declaration.

Plaintiff seeks to add two causes of actions for (1) waste and (2) breach of the subject lease by failure to obtain consent to a sublease of a portion of the property. Plaintiff also seeks to add new parties, Remo Weber and 3 of his related entities, Global Transportation Solutions, Inc., Mybus Corporation and L.A. Excursions, Inc., which the new claims are against. The proposed new parties are apparent sublessors and key parties referenced in the Cross-Complaint. Plaintiff has discovered that the proposed defendants appear to already be subtenants on the property, without any notice or request for approval to Plaintiff. A few months after Defendant Ganas Holdings, LLC filed its Cross-Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained photographs of the subject property which showed that several businesses operated by and connected to Weber appear to be in possession of and utilizing a significant portion of the subject property. (Rumm Supp. Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff now brings these additional claims to address the further breach of the lease that the Cross-Complaint originally raised.

Defendants’ assertion that the motion should be denied because they will be severely prejudiced is without merit. Trial is eight months away. The resulting prejudice would be minimal, if at all. Plaintiff was not dilatory in seeking amendment as the photographs were only obtained a few months ago.

The Court declines to consider the merits of the proposed amendments. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.)

In light of the great liberality in allowing amendments and the lack of resulting prejudice, the motion is GRANTED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TRICOLOR AUTO GROUP LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA AUTO GROUP LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SWEARINGEN JAMES L.