David Ferguson vs. Joshua Bryant

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing

34-2021-00311493-CU-FR-GDS: David Ferguson vs. Joshua Bryant 03/19/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint in Department 53

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff David Ferguson’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

This case pertains to the employment of Plaintiff by Defendants Element 26 Environmental & Demolition, Inc., Joshua Bryant, and Miranda Bryant (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired him on or around March 13, 2010, with promises of a salary and 30% interest in Defendant Element 26 Environmental & Demolition, Inc. When the business experienced cash flow issues, Plaintiff loaned it funds and later extended the time to pay back the loan. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants terminated his employment in September of 2021, and are now refusing to acknowledge his ownership interest in Element 26 Environmental & Demolition, Inc.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint to add additional language and allegations related to the representations made by Defendants. Defendants oppose, arguing that the proposed amendments are a “sham” and made only in an attempt to circumvent the statute of limitations for claims that are time barred.

It is established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff seeks to remove reference to the attachment of Plaintiff’s employment and loan agreements in order to circumvent the statute of limitations for breach of contract, positing that this is inconsistent with the prior pleading. However, given that the complaint still contains a cause of action for breach of contract and language pertaining to the dates the agreements were entered into, such amendments do not appear to affect the issue of statute of limitations. But in any event, the Court does not make any ruling pertaining to a statute of limitations issue in the context of this motion for leave to amend. Defendants remain free to bring a demurrer on this ground.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff is to file and serve the FAC no later than March 29, 2024. Although not required by statute or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311493-CU-FR-GDS: David Ferguson vs. Joshua Bryant 03/19/2024 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint in Department 53

court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the amended complaint.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.