On 08/25/2017 SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against JONATHAN ROSENTHAL, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CRAIG D. KARLAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CRAIG D. KARLAN
SAYBROOK CAPITAL LLC
SCHOTZ JON P.
CHAPMAN ROSALYN M
BOOTH LAURA MARIE
CONNEY SEAN B.
SEDRISH BENJAMIN E.
DANIEL SERJ JACK
BRYAN CAVE LLP
WHEELER TRIGG & O'DONNELL
DAILEY COLIN D.
FRANCO NANCY MARK
DAYTON MARGARET E
12/19/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER
12/28/2017: Other - - OTHER - CIVIL DEPOSIT
1/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REQUEST
3/9/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION AND ORDER
9/20/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN SEDRISH
10/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA
1/23/2020: Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT DISCLOSURES
3/3/2020: Notice - EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JONATHAN ROSENTHALS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION [VOL. 2 OF 3]
3/4/2020: Proof of Service by Mail
3/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING O...)
3/6/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/20/2020
8/8/2018: Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) -
10/16/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 10/16/2018
10/30/2018: Notice of Ruling
12/6/2018: Notice - Notice of Entry of Order Permitting Filing of First Amended Cross Complaint
3/8/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))
Hearing10/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary AdjudicationRead MoreRead Less
Hearing08/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Hearing07/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Trial Setting ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing07/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department N at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:47 PM in Department N, Craig D. Karlan, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/20/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; Filed by SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSeparate Statement (IN SUPPORT OF SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC?S MOTION TO COMPEL); Filed by SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (and Verified Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission for Thomas A. Olsen)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Related Cases (SS028330 ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by SAYBROOK CAPITAL, LLC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC128007 Hearing Date: August 13, 2020 Dept: N
Plaintiff Saybrook Capital, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint shall be deemed filed and served as of the date of hearing on this motion.
The parties shall meet and confer regarding setting a second deposition of Jon Schotz, to occur by video, with costs to be paid by Plaintiff. Each party shall cover the costs of its own counsel.
Plaintiff Saybrook Capital, LLC to give notice.
Plaintiff Saybrook Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order allowing the filing of a First Amended Complaint to conform the factual allegations of the pleadings to the documents and deposition testimony uncovered during discovery, and to remove a portion of a claim that was stricken under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) A party may discover the need to amend after all pleadings are completed (the case is “at issue”) and new information requires a change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. (See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380.)
“The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [trial court’s denial of leave to amend was proper where those factors were present].) If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 [describing same].)
A motion for leave to amend must:
(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;
(2) 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
(3) 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.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)
Further, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify the following:
(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.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)
Plaintiff’s motion includes a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint and a redlined version of the proposed First Amended Complaint with tracked changes. (Mot., Sedrish Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A, B.) Plaintiff also identifies the proposed changes in its memorandum of points and authorities supporting the motion, which includes removing one named Defendant and the unnamed Defendants, adding certain allegations regarding the flow of funds from Saybrook Capital, LLC, to entities controlled by Defendant Jonathan Rosenthal (“Defendant”), removing certain allegations related to the misappropriation claim and deleting a portion of the waste claim which was stricken pursuant to Defendant’s special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. (See Mot., p. 3, lines 22-26.)
Plaintiff’s counsel states the amendment would conform the operative complaint to the Court’s prior rulings and facts uncovered in discovery, and there is only substantive addition, which alleges that money advanced by Plaintiff to entities controlled by Defendant was money owed to Plaintiff. (Mot., Sedrish Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Counsel also states such facts were always known to the parties, and the proposed amendment was not made earlier because Plaintiff did not know Defendant intended on basing his defense on this flow of funds. (Mot., Sedrish Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)
Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, asserting therein that Plaintiff has refused to sit for a second deposition at Plaintiff’s expense so Defendant may conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s new “pass-through entity” theory. (See Opp’n, p. 2, lines 21-25.) Plaintiff asserts such discovery is unnecessary, and there is no legal authority for requiring Plaintiff to cover the costs of the deposition. Otherwise, Defendant does not oppose the amendment.
The Court finds it proper to allow Plaintiff to file the proposed First Amended Complaint as the operative pleading in this action. While Plaintiff is correct there is no authority requiring it to pay for the cost of the second deposition arising out of the proposed amendment, the Court finds the interests of justice will be served by allowing Defendant to take a second deposition on this limited theory at Plaintiff’s expense, although the Court limits the expenses to the costs of the deposition, which does not include an award of attorney’s fees. First, propounding written discovery is not the same as deposing an individual, as the information obtained during a deposition could provide further information to both parties beyond what was asked in a written question. Second, the costs of such discovery are minimal under present circumstances, as Emergency Rule 11(a) of the California Judicial Council’s Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19 states that a party “is not required to be present with the deposition officer at the time of the deposition,” and his or her deposition may proceed by video, thereby reducing some of the usual costs of a deposition. Third, Plaintiff concedes the facts supporting the new claim have been known to the parties since the beginning, so this is not a theory based on new facts would could not have been asserted earlier because they were known only to Defendant; amendment is only necessary because of Defendant’s conduct during litigation. Thus, the Court finds it just to require each party to cover their own attorney’s fees, but Plaintiff shall cover other costs of the deposition.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Saybrook Capital, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint shall be deemed filed and served as of the date of hearing on this motion. The parties shall meet and confer regarding setting a second deposition of Jon Schotz, to occur by video, with costs to be paid by Plaintiff. Each party shall cover the costs of its own counsel.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases