What is a Motion for Leave to Amend?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Leave to Amend

Recent Rulings on Motion for Leave to Amend

76-100 of 10000 results

ANDREW TRAINES ET AL VS MATTHEW MANDEL

Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 provides the standard for granting leave to amend where a cross-complaint is related to the underlying complaint. That section provides: “A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELDER OSVALDO GUTIERREZ VS LOCAL PIE, LLC, ET AL.

Lopez’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KIMBERLY BATTAGLIA VS KRAIG LAMONT GOLDEN, MD, ET AL.

Accordingly, demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRITTANY JELKS, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Plaintiffs request leave to amend but failed to cure the defect from the last complaint, and do not explain how the defect may be cured now. Leave to amend is denied. Ruling The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Next dates: Notice:

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL VS EPIC GAMES, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ANN E. AMIS, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE HGS 1996 REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL. VS CEDRIC L. WATKINS, II, ET AL.

The demurrer of the Moten Defendants[1] to the seventh, eighth, and twelfth causes of action in the SAC is SUSTAINED with twenty days leave to amend. Issue No.2: Fraud Causes of Action The Watkins Defendants assert that the second and eleventh causes of action in the SAC do not meet the heightened specificity standards required to assert a fraud cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEVEN SMITH VS CANTWELL-ANDERSON

The demurrer to the second cause of action is also sustained with leave to amend. Conclusion Defendant Cantwell-Anderson’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

SUNSET HILLS CAR WASH INC VS GENERAL BARRICADE LLC

The Court granted the Motion to Strike as to the prayer for attorneys’ fees against Ryan without leave to amend and denied as to the prayer for punitive damages. On May 21, 2019, Sunset filed a Demurrer to the FAXC, which the Court sustained with leave to amend. On September 25, 2019, the Courts of Appeal issued a Remittitur as to General’s appeal of the granting of the preliminary injunction and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RICHARD KINSELLA VS JOSE JESUS FLORES, ET AL.

Because Plaintiff concedes he currently lacks facts to support the punitive damages claim, leave to amend is denied. The ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file a motion for leave to amend if, during the course of the litigation, Plaintiff learns of facts that would support imposition of punitive damages against Gainer. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEXANDRO FILIPPINI, ET AL. V. TESLA, INC.

(2) Motion to Strike All of the allegations and prayers that are the subject of Tesla’s motion to strike are within and relate to causes of action for which the court sustains Tesla’s demurrer with leave to amend. The motion to strike is therefore moot. The court nonetheless expects that plaintiffs in filing their first amended complaint will address, to the extent appropriate, the issues raised in Tesla’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

LISA HERNANDEZ SOLIS VS. CAMERON KIEFER

If there is a reasonable possibility that a pleading deficiency can be cured, it is an abuse of discretion for the Court to deny leave to amend. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) Demurrers on the ground of uncertainty are disfavored and should only be sustained in the event the complaint is so vaguely and deficiently pleaded that the demurring defendant reasonably cannot intelligently respond to the complaint. (Khoury v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

ROBERT MEADOWS VS. ANACAPA HOMES LLC

For the following reasons, the Court SUSTAINS Champion's general demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action (Fraud) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND: (1) A cause of action for fraud must be pleaded with factual specificity concerning the details of the false misstatements or material omissions, intent to induce detrimental reliance, reasonable reliance, and resulting harm. (Wihelm v. Pray, Price Williams and Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1331–1332, 231 Cal.Rptr. 355.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

WARREN VS. MURPHY

VERLADNER * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Verlanders’ demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is sustained, without leave to amend. If cross-complainants contest the tentative ruling to request leave to amend, they should appear at the hearing prepared to discuss in detail how they propose to amend and how the proposed amendment will solve the problems.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NATALIE NGUYEN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZIXIANG "LEO" LIN,, ET AL. VS PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Item 4 is granted with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff failed to set forth a statutory or contractual basis to support the request for attorneys’ fees. Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CESAR CRUZ VS CEDAR CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CARLOS SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with leave to amend. Moving part to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SAIMIR A PRAPANIKU VS SASHA SHEV

Second, Plaintiff has not shown that his counsel’s failure to appear at the hearing caused the demurrer to be sustained without leave to amend. The court’s tentative ruling, before it was aware that Plaintiff’s counsel would not appear at the hearing, was to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s counsel has not shown that he could have made any argument at the 2/6/20 hearing that would have resulted in a different outcome.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

EDDIE WASHINGTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

County’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HABEEBULLAH N. RASHEED VS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ET AL.

Rasheed's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has 10 days to amend the complaint. The court has read Defendant's "Rebuttal(sic) against the Defendants(sic) memorandum of points and authorities in support of demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint." Allegations of facts and legal theories stated in that document that are not part of the complaint cannot be considered for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Doug Mewhinney

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

CHRISTINE M. WEBER VS JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR

A motion for leave to amend can be denied if the moving party has delayed unreasonable in seeking to amend, or if the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action. Id., Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428. Plaintiff argues there will be no prejudice to defendants if the motion is granted, since a trial date has not been scheduled, there are no new factual allegations in the proposed amendment and no depositions have been taken.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PAMELA ISLAND VS TOMMY NGUYEN, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on October 29, 2019 and on January 23, 2020, Defendant’s demurrer was sustained and their Motion to Strike was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on February 11, 2020. Defendant demurs to the SAC on the grounds that the Second Cause of Action for Willful Misconduct/Malice/Oppression fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and fails for uncertainty.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant Gao’s demurrer to the Complaint came for hearing on July 11, 2017, at which time the court sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend, and with 30 days’ leave to amend as to the second and third causes of action. Defendant Xu’s demurrer to the first cause of action of the Complaint came for hearing on August 3, 2017, at which time the Court sustained it without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

ASHER ENTERPRISES LLC VS. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

T 8:30 a.m. 8/10/20 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Demurrer to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Motion to Strike is MOOT. Introduction Cross-Defendant Auction.com, Inc. (“Auction”) demurs to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SAXC”) filed by Cross-Complainant Triloki Devjani (“Devjani”.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC VS CITY OF COSTA MESA

As this is the Plaintiff’s first attempt to plead, leave to amend must be granted. (See Cabral v. Soares (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1240 (“Rarely should a judge sustain a demurrer to an initial complaint without granting leave to amend."); City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.) Defendant is ordered to give notice of these rulings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.