Document for Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. vs. Sonora Petroleum, Inc.

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR       COURT     OF   CALIFORNIA,         COUNTY     OF   PLACER


                   Date:  January23,   2018             7                  ~ ‘Time: 8:30AM
                   Judge:  Michael  Jacques                                  Dept.Lh |
                   Reporter   None                                     -     cee      Tres       rh      op    Ss.


              - Voyager   Restaurant  Group,  Inc.vs. Sonora  Petroleum,    QO
                Inc. (FKA)  et al



                 (_]And  related Cross  Action(s)  _



                 Proceedings    RE: Motion:   Leave -

                 Civropped.                 oO  Continued  to    _.   [by    PlaintiffO.  by Defendant
                             7       .          :                               Eby     Stipulation  O  by  Court  |
                         ter argued  and submitted.
              .  oO Submitted   on points  and authorities without   C. argument   oO  appearance.
                 L] Motion/Petition   granted.    [_]Motion/Petition   denied.
                 ]  Demurrer    O  sustained   [J overruled   [J without   Oo with  leave  |to
                                                                                             (Jarnend    CL) answer.
                 0  Counsel  appointed   for:
                 [_]Taken   under  submission.
                 2]  Debtor  issworn  and  retired with counsel  for examination.
                 =    tipulation to []Judge  Pra  Tem
                                                 Tem    [|Cammissioner    executed in  206en court                 ce               ok
                     ergrston    ee Cirndae  Pr AAO          Cribs                           Va     RAR.             ON
                     Counsel  for       eeeprepare  the written  order and  submit  itto opposing  counsel
                                                                                                        sel for
                                                                                                             eo anaroval  as
                    to content  and form.

                 [J Other.
                Vir
                 AThe    tentative ruling is adopted  as the ruling of the court,to wit;     7  —>
                   patendant”'s    »  Motion      for    Leave      to  | “Pile   Amended      Answer       to    Third     Amended

                 Complaint      is  granted.




                         The  court’s       discretion       will    generally      be   exercised       liberally       to   permit


                 amendment       of   pleadings.         Nestle     v.    Santa    Monica      (1972)     6  Cal.3d     920,     939.


                 Courts     must    apply     a  policy     of    great    liberality       in   permitting       amendments        at   -




                                            0                 a                                                .
                                                ©                                                ©
                 any     stage     of    the    proceedings,          absent     prejudice        to    the     adverse      party.

                 Atkinson       v.   Elk    Corp.      (2003)     109    Cal.App.4th         739,    761.        In   this     case,

                 defendant      asserts      that    it   learned      of   the   facts     underlying       its    proposed      new

                 afflenavire       defenses       shortly     prior     to   filing     the    instant     motion.         Further,

                 plaintiff      fails     to   establish       that    it   would    be   prejudiced        by   permitting       the

                 amended     answer    to   be  filed.




                        Defendant       shall    file    and    serve    its   amended      answer     to   the   third     amended

                 complaint      on    or   before     January      30,    2018.      Plaintiff's       -.request     to   continue

                 trial     is    denied       as    plaintiff        fails     to    establish        good     cause      for     the

                 continuance.                                                           .



              Te                 Sco,                                          enrlo               GP            :
               ke         Gn                         oR          Onrku                i               €xeJO-AAROON_
               >              Mena                                OS           5   SON