This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/20/2019 at 00:56:49 (UTC).

PEDRO BALTAZAR DELGADO VS BEST AUTO TRADERS LLC

Case Summary

On 03/06/2018 a Property - Other Property Fraud case was filed by PEDRO BALTAZAR DELGADO against BEST AUTO TRADERS LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6360

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BALTAZAR-DELGADO PEDRO

Respondents and Defendants

BEST AUTO TRADERS LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

BEST AUTO TRADERS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

HAGHIGHAT [DOE 1] ALIREZA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

10/26/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

12/4/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order

2/8/2019: Minute Order

Supplemental Declaration

2/8/2019: Supplemental Declaration

Declaration

3/18/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

4/3/2019: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

5/14/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Case Management Statement

5/14/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

5/15/2019: Minute Order

Order

5/16/2019: Order

Substitution of Attorney

5/16/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

5/17/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

7/11/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Motion for Leave to Amend

7/11/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF PEDRO BALTAZAR DELGADO

4/5/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF PEDRO BALTAZAR DELGADO

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

3/6/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

SUMMONS

3/6/2018: SUMMONS

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Pedro Baltazar-Delgado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend the Complaint; Filed by Pedro Baltazar-Delgado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Pedro Baltazar-Delgado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (defendant's filing of substitution of attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Pedro Baltazar-Delgado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Pedro Baltazar-Delgado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Order (Re Motion to strike answer as to defendant Best Auto Traders); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Best Auto Traders, LLC, a California limited liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 04/05/2018
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF PEDRO BALTAZAR DELGADO

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Request-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Pedro Baltazar-Delgado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696360    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Pedro baltazar delgado,

Plaintiff,

v.

best auto traders, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC696360

Hearing Date: February 21, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’S motion for leave to amend complaint

Background

On March 6, 2018, plaintiff Pedro Baltazar Delgado (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this case alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) constructive trust, (4) promissory estoppel, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) intentional misrepresentation, and (7) fraud against Defendant Best Auto Traders LLC (“Defendant Best Auto”) and Does 1 through 50 relating to a written agreement regarding the purchase of a vehicle.

On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. On February 6, 2020, Defendant Best Auto and proposed defendant Alireza Haghighat (collectively “Defendants”), who was Doe 1 in the original complaint, filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (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, 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 California Rules of Court, Rule 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. Rule 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.”

Discussion

Timeliness

“Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (CCP § 1005(b).) The time is determined by counting backward from the hearing date (plus any additional days required because of mailing or other methods of service), excluding the day of the hearing. (CCP § 12c); (see Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 CA4th 1032, 1038.)

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed on August 12, 2019. The Proof of service filed shows service on Defendant Best Auto on November 1, 2019 by mail and service on Defendant Haghighat on January 8, 2020, by mail. Thus, the motion was timely filed and served.

Proposed Amendments

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to include the identification of Doe 1 as Alireza Haghighat and as the owner and alter ego of Defendant Best Auto Traders, LLC. Plaintiff, however, has not complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. While the notice of the motion mentions a redline copy of the amended complaint as an exhibit B, no such exhibit has been attached. In addition, though noticed in the motion, no declaration has been filed 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 reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Rule 3.1324(b).)

While there is a “strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments[,]” (Mesler, supra, 39 Cal.3d at pp.296-97), it has long been held that permitting or refusing amendments to pleadings is within the discretion of the court. (Duffey v. General Petroleum Corp. (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 757; ¿John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Markowitz (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 388; ¿Frankish v. Frankish Co. (1930) Cal.App. 93; ¿ Canfield v. Bates (1859) 13 Cal. 606.) Further, an application to amend a pleading may be denied, where no showing is made to justify the court's discretionary power. (Cullinan v. McColgan (1927) 87 Cal.App. 684.)

Here, the lack of declaration is compounded by the memorandum in which the Plaintiff has only provided the legal authority allowing an amendment but has failed to provide any reason to support an amendment. Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint Plaintiff is to make an offer of proof at the hearing as to (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.

Opposition

In its opposition, Defendants do not claim any prejudice but rather claim that the proposed amendment is a mere sham pleading. Defendants contend that the proposed amendment is not made in good faith, and that it contradicts prior admissions made by the prior complaint. Defendants claim that the new proposed complaint contradicts the previous complaint by stating that Defendants Best Auto and Haghighat entered into the written agreement whereas in the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged only that Defendant Best Auto entered into the agreement. However, it is unclear how this is a contradiction. The proposed amended complaint pleads an alter ego theory, and as such, Defendant Haghighat could be liable under an alter ego theory. Further, Defendants’ claims of misrepresentation fail to address the fact that more than two individuals can be parties to a contract.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ claims of misrepresentation sham pleading are without merit.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Plaintiff must make an offer of proof at the hearing as to (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.

If Plaintiff fails to do so, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint will be DENIED without prejudice for Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for leave to amend that complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 21, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court