On 03/23/2018 SHAHRAM YERMIAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against AMIT KASHANIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY E. KENDIG
YERMIAN MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.
CWO LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
BRAND NAMES HOLDING GROUP
KASHANIAN SHERRY AGHAI
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
KASHANIAN AMIT DBA APPAREL DEPOT
LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS P.C.
A/D/Y LAW GROUP P.C.
YOUSSEFYEH A DAVID
6/18/2018: Minute Order
6/27/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
7/2/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
7/27/2018: Minute Order
8/2/2018: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
9/13/2018: PLAINTIFFS SHAHRAM YERMIAN, SAMAN SAEDI, YERMIAN MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
2/4/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
5/23/2019: Minute Order
6/28/2019: Minute Order
5/23/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 170.6 & GOVERNMENT CODE 68616]
5/23/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: MOTION TO STRIKE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
5/31/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
5/4/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/4/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
at 10:30 AM in Department 24; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Brand Names Holding Group (Cross-Complainant); Amit Kashanian (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Brand Names Holding Group (Defendant); Amit Kashanian (Defendant); Sherry Aghai Kashanian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Subpoena) - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Subpoena served on Commerica Bank) - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Brand Names Holding Group (Defendant); Amit Kashanian (Defendant); Sherry Aghai Kashanian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (and protective order); Filed by Shahram Yermian (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/SummonsRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS CITACION JUDICIALRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Shahram Yermian (Plaintiff); Saman Saedi (Plaintiff); Yermian Management Group, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Shahram Yermian (Plaintiff); Saman Saedi (Plaintiff); Yermian Management Group, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT, ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC699581 Hearing Date: February 28, 2020 Dept: 24
Defendants/Cross-Complainants Amit Kashanian and Brand Names Holding Group’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.
On March 23, 2018, Plaintiffs Shahram Yemian, Sam Saedi, and Yermian Management Group, Inc. commenced this action against Defendants Amit Kashanian (“Amit”), individually and dba Apparel Depot, Brand Names Holding Group (“BNHG”), Apparel Depot (“AD”), and Sherry Aghai Kashanian (“Sherry”). This action arises out of a dispute concerning the wind up of a joint venture between Plaintiffs and Defendants. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging six causes of action for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of fiduciary duty; 3) dissolution of joint venture; 4) accounting; 5) conversion; and 6) declaratory relief.
On June 12, 2019, BNHG and Amit filed a cross complaint against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Joubin Bral (“Bral”) and CWO LLC (“CWO”). On August 30, 2019, Cross-Complainants filed the operative first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) states fifteen causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and other causes of action related Cross-Defendants conduct in the joint venture. Generally, the FACC states that Cross-Defendants converted joint venture sales, commingled assets, and refused to pay certain costs.
On December 6, 2019, Cross-Complainants filed the instant motion for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”). On February 3, 2020, Cross-Defendants filed an opposition. On February 21, 2020, Cross-Complainants filed a reply.
If a plaintiff wishes to amend a complaint after the answer has been filed or after the demurrer has been filed and after the hearing on the demurrer, or if he or she has already amended the complaint “of course,” permission of the court must be obtained before the amendment will be allowed. (CCP §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)
Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the court. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading . . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1); see CCP § 576.) Policy favors liberally granting leave to amend so that all disputed matters between the parties may be resolved. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Absent prejudice to the adverse party, the court may permit amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [internal quotes omitted].) Where leave is sought to add entirely new claims, the court may grant leave to amend if the new claims are based on the same general set of facts, and the amendment will not prejudice the opposing party. (Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 600-602; Glaser v. Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].)
Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; see also Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490). An opposing party is prejudiced where the amendment would necessitate a trial delay along with a loss of critical evidence, added preparation expense, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [leave properly denied where plaintiff sought leave on the eve of trial, nearly two years after the complaint was originally filed and gave no explanation for the delay which prejudiced defendant who did not discover or depose many of the witnesses who would support the new allegations and had not marshaled evidence in opposition of the new allegations].)
A motion for leave to amend must state with particularity what allegations are to be amended. Namely, it must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and/or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration specifying: (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, Rule 3.1324(b).) The motion must also be accompanied by the proposed amended pleading, numbered to differentiate it from the prior pleadings or amendments. (CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(1).) It is within the court’s discretion to require compliance with Rule 3.1324 before granting leave to amend. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)
Here, the motion and declaration generally states the nature of the amendments. Cross-Complainants show that the amendments are for: 1) that the addition of four new parties into the case; 2) that the streamlining of the case by deleting four causes of action; and 3) that the addition of more specific allegations regarding the proposed new parties and the current five parties. Counsel explains that since the parties were making an attempt to settle the case at mediation, a request to add new parties was not made previously to allow to focus on resolution.
Arguably, the declaration does not state when the new facts were discovered, only that they were revealed through discovery. (Youssefyeh Decl., ¶ 3.) The reply suggests that Cross-Defendants set up “new companies” in 2019 with Cross-Complainant’s vendors to hide their diversion of the sales of the Re-Orders and conversion of the joint venture funds, which are the newly added parties. (See Supp. Youssefyeh Decl., Exs. 1-2 [showing Marsha Production LLC and Marsha Trading Inc. were formed in 2019].) The Court assumes that these companies were not discovered until recently, though it is not clear precisely when they were discovered. Given the nature of the amendments, the Court is willing to overlook that technical requirement in the initial declaration and will only affect the showing of delay.
Here, no substantial delay is clearly present. Cross-Defendants repeatedly claim that there was an “almost two year” delay in filing. This misapprehends the concept of delay. The first opportunity that Cross-Complainants had in filing a cross-complaint was June 12, 2019, when they answered and simultaneously filed a cross-complaint. Notably, the FACC was filed in August 2019 prior to the filing of any answers. Cross-Defendants’ complaints of a lengthy two-year delay are not well taken. Cross-Defendants arguments concerning delays in discovery or other procedural matters unrelated to the amendments here are also not well-taken. (See Opp. at 10-11.) Therefore, the longest possible delay could be approximately six months (from June 2019 to December 2019). In any event, the Court does not find this was a substantial delay justifying denial without a showing of prejudice connected with this delay.
Cross-Defendants fail to show any prejudice to themselves as a result of any purported delay. The complained-of delay only pertains to substantive liability issues, and vague assertions that there may have been lost evidence or increased burden of discovery. (See Opp. at 8-11.) Bral and CWO cannot have been prejudiced by their inclusion in the SACC, since they have been in the suit since the initial cross-complaint. Further, Cross-Defendants’ complaints do not appear to be the type of prejudice that would justify denial. The allegations of the SACC do not alter the nature of the causes of action. Every instance of a specific allegation that Cross-Defendants cite to are merely clarifications of facts, rather than any substantial change to the causes of action. In fact, the SACC only reduces the number of causes of action. (Estate of Hunter (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 859 [no prejudice is shown where an amendment provides the addition of matters essential to make the original cause of action complete and effects no change in the nature of the case].)
Cross-Defendants argue on behalf of proposed Cross-Defendants Amir Nader Tehrani, NT Fabrics, LLC, Marsha Production, LLC and Marsha Trading, Inc. since they have not been a part of this suit and will have to retain counsel, spend time familiarizing themselves with the suit, and in engage in discovery. The propriety of Cross-Defendants arguing on behalf of the proposed parties aside, Cross-Defendants only argue that those parties would be prejudiced because they would have to participate in the litigation. The Court is not concerned with this type of prejudice, as this would be present even if Cross-Complainants added these parties immediately. Cross-Defendants also argue that this may delay trial. However, this does not show prejudice, just a theoretical delay of trial.
The Court also notes that the few authorities Cross-Defendants do cite support leave here. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [leave to add new causes properly denied where amendment was proposed on the eve of trial with no explanation]; P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1345 [“P&D did not seek leave to amend until after the trial readiness conference, an amendment would require additional discovery and perhaps result in a demurrer or other pretrial motion, and P & D offered no explanation for the delay.”]; see also Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490 [leave granted].)
Written discovery and third-party discovery have been ongoing between Plaintiffs and Defendants. However, discovery has not commenced to the newly added parties Bral and CWO. Further, no depositions have taken place. Additionally, trial is not until August 3, 2020 and the suit is currently less than two years old.
Accordingly, Cross-Complainants’ motion is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.