What is a Motion for Leave to Amend?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Leave to Amend

Recent Rulings on Motion for Leave to Amend

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Accordingly, the motion is granted without leave to amend as to these parties’ contract claims against Saddleback and the other subcontractors. 2. Motion by California Sheet Metal Works, Inc. for Summary Adjudication of the Contract-Based Claims in the First Amended Complaint The motion is GRANTED as to Issues 1, 3 and 4 (contract-based claims), with leave to amend as to T-12 and HRG only.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

The Motion to Strike portions of paragraph 10 of the TAC and the “as he had done before on at least three other occasions as set forth above” of paragraph 13(b) is GRANTED without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALEXADRIA BARCELO VS ENFANTS RICHES DEPRIMES, LLC,

On October 7, 2019, defendant’s counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel proposing a stipulation to dismiss the two causes of action to which defendant’s demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. (Motion, Exhibit B.) Plaintiff’s counsel responded on the same day that he would not sign a stipulation, indicating that plaintiff’s failure to amend those causes of action has the same practical effect. (Motion, Exhibit C.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BAGRAT OGANNES, ET AL. VS ARMEN KAVOUKJIAN, ET AL.

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.) B.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARGRET HASHAWAY-RHODES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

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 19, 2020

JOI STEPHENS, ET AL. V. REICKER PFAU PYLE & MCROY LLP, ET AL.

On September 24, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer to the fifth amended complaint, without leave to amend as to plaintiffs John Stephens, Ryan Chacon, and Alexandra Djordjevic, and with leave to amend as to plaintiff Joi Stephens. On October 8, 2019, plaintiff Joi Stephens filed a sixth amended complaint, which defendants answered.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

ANA ESQUIVEL V. ISLA VISTA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, ET AL.

Ordonez of Walsh & Associates, APC for defendant Islas Vista Recreation & Park District Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] RULING: The demurrer is sustained, with leave to amend on or before September 1, 2020, or such other later date as the Court might set at the hearing on this demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

OLGUIN V. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING INC., ET AL.

Leave to amend a complaint should be given liberally. (Gasoline Retailers, supra, 50 Cal.2d at p. 851; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 938–939.) However, there are circumstances in which leave to amend is properly denied. In particular, denying a request to amend a complaint may be appropriate when an unreasonable delay in seeking amendment prejudices the defendant. (Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

COLBECK V. CUFF ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Leave to Amend Complaint The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is granted. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596; Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

RICARDO ARREDONDO VS POYA GHASRI, ET AL.

On April 8, 2019, this Court sustained both Demurrers with leave to amend within 30 days. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a FAC, alleging the same five causes of action. On November 12, 2019, as to Defendant Seaside’s Demurrer to the FAC: the Court sustained with leave to amend as to the Third Cause of Action; sustained without leave to amend as to the First and Fifth Causes of action; and the Second and Third Causes of action are to be dismissed by the Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MARYAM DAMANDAN VS PHILIP JEONG HYUN HONG, ET AL.

On January 6, 2020, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer as to the sixth and seventh causes of action with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff did not amend the complaint with respect to those causes of action such that the sixth and seventh causes of action are not part of the operative complaint. Therefore, this motion is denied as moot.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

DEBRA MCLAURIN VS MOTEV LLC ET AL

The demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action without leave to amend. Cross-Defendant Motev LLC is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

HASAN TEHRANCHI VS GOLNAZ AFGO AHMADI

On March 13, 2020, the court Sustained with Leave to Amend Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for fraud. Defendants move to compel initial production of documents served on January 7, 2020. Defendants also move for monetary sanctions. Legal Standards A.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

ONE UP VAPOR LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION VS HYBRID DISTRIBUTION & MANUFACTURING LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

On January 6, 2020, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer as to the sixth and seventh causes of action with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff did not amend the complaint with respect to those causes of action such that the sixth and seventh causes of action are not part of the operative complaint. Therefore, this motion is denied as moot.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSE DOUGLAS FALLAS, ET AL. VS TJ GURDEEP JUNEJA, ET AL.

“The granting of leave to amend after a demurrer is sustained on one ground does not give the plaintiff a license to add any possible cause of action that might not be subject to dismissal on that ground.” (Zakk v. Diesel (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 431, 456.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no “reasonable possibility that the defect and be cured by amendment.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RIVAS VS STATE FARM MUTUAL

The court sustains, with leave to amend, Defendant State Farm's general demurer to Plaintiff's third cause of action for fraud, on the grounds that (a) the body of the third cause of action does not identify which "Defendant" made a false promise, and also fails to specifically indicate what the false promise was (i.e., was it a promise to fund the settlement? Or a promise to fund the settlement within a particular time?)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

AC WASTE MANAGEMENT VS. WASTE CONNECTIONS

The Court heard ACWMA’s demurrer to the cross-complaint on January 7, 2019 and sustained it without leave to amend. That order was entered on January 31, 2019. This Court then heard Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings relating to their First Amended Complaint. That motion came on regularly for hearing on May 2, 2019 MJOP was filed on June 21, 2019. Judgment was entered on August 14, 2019. Defendants’ filed an appeal on August 29, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

KRAMER VS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Respondents argue that leave to amend should be denied because the proposed new cause of action fails to state a claim as a matter of law. The closed session was permitted under section 5495.6 (d)(1) or (2). Respondents further argue that any claim based on the January 21, 2020 closed session is barred by the 15-day statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 54960.1 (c)(4) regardless of whether it is filed in an amended petition, a supplemental petition, or a totally new petition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HASANI WHITE VS. BRET AASEN

The demurrer is sustained, with leave to amend, as to the Second and Third Causes of Action; sustained without leave to amend as to the Ninth and Eleventh Causes of Action; and overruled as to the Eighth Cause of Action. Any amended complaint shall be filed and served on or before August 31, 2020. If plaintiffs elect not to amend, defendant shall file and serve its Answer on or before September 14, 2020. To the extent the court grants leave to amend, the amendment is limited to existing causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FERNANDO ROSALES VS DARCY DRU WATERSON

Defendant Darcy Dru Waterson’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

SAM SHADAB, ET AL. VS M. AZHAR ASADI

.: 19STCV40313 Hearing Date: 8/17/2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with twenty days’ leave to amend. The motion to strike is moot.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

WILLIE BROWN VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

19STCV37543 WILLIE BROWN vs FCA US, LLC Demurrer and Motion to Strike TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer to the 6th cause of action for fraud in the inducement—concealment is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file and amended complaint within 10 days. The motion to strike is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal after the amendment of the complaint. The FAC asserts general allegations and conclusions without asserting specific facts. (FAC ¶¶ 147-162.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

MEDALLION ENTERPRISES, INC. VS TIFFANY DEAN, ET AL.

Because that cause of action alleges nothing more than a breach of contract, and because Plaintiff did not explain how it can amend to state a basis for punitive damages, the motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 15 days’ leave to amend as to the second and third causes of action. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the first cause of action. The motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

PETER ELIAS, ET AL. VS 3RD AVENUE PARTNERS LLC, ET AL.

The Court finds that Peter is barred from asserting his claims against SGV and therefore the demurrer is sustained as to Peter, without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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.