MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME JARA HOLDING CVRI2400333 SECOND, LLC VS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES RAMANI Tentative Ruling:
The factual representations in the reply memorandum are not considered. The motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the reduced sum of $46,240.
Analysis:
The factual representations in the reply are not supported by any evidence. Even if they had been supported by a declaration, a declaration submitted with a reply is untimely. The Court rejects the cross-defendants’ contention that the results of the trial are mixed to the extent that the moving parties are not entitled to any fees. The cross-complaint sought ejectment and damages for breach of contract. The court found that the crosscomplainants were entitled to ejectment and found that the cross-defendants had breached the contract. Under those facts, as indicated in the judgment, the crosscomplainants are the prevailing parties. There is no basis to allocate fees or to deny fees to the prevailing party. The only question is the amount of fees reasonably incurred.
The moving party did not support its motion with contemporaneous time records. Instead, Rosen conceded that he “kept [his] time entries on a monthly basis.” Thus, they are estimates made up to 30 days after the fact. That those estimates are not entirely reliable is demonstrated by the fact that 28 of the entries are for whole hours. To account for the weakness of the evidence of the time incurred, the Court reduces the fees claimed by 15%.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME OCHOA VS CITY OF CVRI2405011 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND RIVERSIDE Tentative Ruling:
The hearing on the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is continued to July 14, 2026, at 8:30 A.M. in this department. The moving party shall file and serve an amended declaration pursuant to section 377.32 no later than July 6, 2026. The defendants may file and serve a sur-reply no later than July 9, 2026. If no declaration is filed in a timely manner, the motion shall be denied.
The defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied. The defendant’s request for dismissal of the action is denied.
The trial setting conference, currently set for 6-22-26, is continued to 8-16-26 at 8:30 A.M. in this department.
Analysis:
In her reply, the proposed plaintiff appears to concede that she has failed to fully comply with CCP section 377.32, the statutory means by which a plaintiff or proposed plaintiff establishes that the plaintiff has standing to bring the survivor action. Rather than force a second motion for leave to file a SAC, the Court on its own motion continues the hearing to allow the plaintiff to file an amended declaration that satisfies section 377.32. All remaining arguments are most appropriately considered in a demurrer or motion for summary judgment after any SAC is filed.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
None of the matters of which the defendants sought judicial notice are relevant to a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
The request for dismissal is procedurally meritless. Any such relief requires a noticed motion or demurrer.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION THAT MATTERS IN LVNV FUNDING LLC VS CVRI2500154 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS BE MILLS DEEMED ADMITTED Tentative Ruling:
The plaintiff’s unopposed motion is denied without prejudice to the filing of a properly noticed motion.
Analysis:
The plaintiff noticed the motion to be heard in the wrong courthouse. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the plaintiff sent the motion to the defendant’s correct address, since the street address listed in the motion’s proof of service is not the P.O. Box address that the clerk’s office has listed as defendant’s address of record.