Auto Finance Solutions, LLC vs. Citicars

Next, the motion states: “Exhibits ‘A’ to ‘Y’ are the investment agreements which contain a confidentiality clause and include private financial investment information typically sealed by courts.” (Motion: 5:2-4.) The motion does not identify these documents more specifically; however, they are presumably exhibits to the Complaint. Regardless, as stated above, the “private financial investment information” is not specifically identified.

In support of this portion of the motion, Defendants cite only Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, wherein the Court declined to seal a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause. Huffy reaffirmed that “a settlement agreement which had a confidentiality provision could not be sealed unless there was a showing of serious injury which would result from public disclosure.” (Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 106.) Similarly, no such showing has been made herein.

Lastly, while Defendants briefly cite authority which discusses sealing trade secrets (See ¶18 of Sunil Brahmbhatt Declaration, citing In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298-299), Defendants have not identified any trade secrets, included within any filing.

Based on all the above, the motion is DENIED.

53 Auto Finance Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Solutions, LLC vs. Citicars Plaintiff Auto Finance Solutions, LLC’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Civil Procedure Code provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

The case law is clear that leave to amend should be granted liberally at all stages of the proceedings in order to accomplish substantial justice for both parties and to resolve cases on their merits. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489; IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend . . . .” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [citations and quotations omitted].)

Plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the procedural requirements for a motion for leave to amend. (Sadana Decl. ¶¶ 5-7,10, Exhs. 1-2.) No opposition was filed and no prejudice was identified from the filing of the proposed Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kavita Sadana by May 22, 2026.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling.