This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/17/2020 at 09:03:39 (UTC).

NBL INVESTMENTS LLC VS BLAKE CORNISH

Case Summary

On 01/05/2018 NBL INVESTMENTS LLC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BLAKE CORNISH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9933

  • Filing Date:

    01/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

NBL INVESTMENTS LLC

Defendant

CORNISH BLAKE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FU DAVID D. ESQ LAW OFFICES OF

Defendant Attorney

GILBERT J. THOMAS ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 07/27/2020

7/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 07/27/2020

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: RTN OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPL

2/8/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: RTN OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPL

Case Management Statement

5/15/2018: Case Management Statement

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

10/2/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NOURA RIZZUTO RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

2/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NOURA RIZZUTO RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF AND REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYSO FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN LIMINE NO. 3

2/14/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF AND REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYSO FEES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN LIMINE NO. 3

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

2/14/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NOURA RIZZUTO RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

2/14/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NOURA RIZZUTO RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

Request for Judicial Notice

2/14/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 3

3/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 3

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 4

3/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 4

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

3/9/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NOURA RIZZUTO RE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

3/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NOURA RIZZUTO RE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Witness List

3/11/2020: Witness List

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/17/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF FSC AND TRIAL DATES

6/20/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF FSC AND TRIAL DATES

Notice - Notice Re: Reassignment

10/9/2018: Notice - Notice Re: Reassignment

53 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/01/2021
  • Hearing02/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketNotice (MSC & CHANGE PLATFORM); Filed by NBL INVESTMENTS LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Settlement Conference) of 07/27/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Settlement Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
75 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketNotice (OF UNAVAILABILITY ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketNotice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by NBL INVESTMENTS LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by NBL INVESTMENTS LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069933    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: O

Plaintiff NBL Investments, LLC’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint is DENIED.

JUDICIAL NOTICE is taken of Defendant Blake Cornish’s (“Defendant”) Exhibits A-B.  (Evid. Code §§ 451, 452.)

Plaintiff NBL Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleadings.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

“A motion to amend a pleading before trial must… 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 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.”  (CRC 3.1324(a).)  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.  (CRC 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff proposes to add a cause of action for Attorney’s Fees Under Tort of Another Doctrine.

Samuel Jones’s declaration does not adequately explain when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (See CRC 3.1324(b).)  Plaintiff alleges that the Linao case and the present case were filed simultaneously on the same day, and Plaintiff did not have the facts at the time that it has now.  However, as Defendant points out, the Linao case was dismissed in May of 2019.  This is not a new development, and Plaintiff could have been easily amended the present complaint throughout the pendency of this litigation. 

This Court finds that Plaintiff has been dilatory in seeking amendment.  (Hirsa v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  While Plaintiff contends that he would have amended the complaint sooner but was expecting to settle the case at the most recent Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”), Plaintiff could have filed the motion well before the MSC.  In fact, this late amendment seems punitive and in response to the inability of the parties to come to a settlement.  At this late stage in litigation, Defendant would be severely prejudiced by the amendment, which appears to be a belated attempt to reopen discovery.  This is especially true considering the lack of the evidence produced by Plaintiff that it intended to seek attorney fees incurred in the Linao action throughout this case while discovery was still open.

Motion is DENIED.