Landgren v. Green Living

on Client and on the other parties in this action. The court finds Attorneys have provided a valid and sufficient reason for requesting to be relieved as counsel for Client. However, Attorneys failed to file the requisite form MC-053, which is the order granting the requested relief.

Upon filing form MC-053, the court will GRANT the motion.

The court notes the order relieving counsel shall not be effective until Attorneys file with the court a proof of service showing the signed orders (specifically form MC-053) granting the motion have been served on Client. Until such time, Attorneys shall remain counsel of record.

Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

2. Yoon v. Ross Stores, Inc. 26-1538080

Before the court is an unopposed motion filed by attorneys at BL Law Group APC (“Attorneys”), requesting to be relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff All Jung Ho Yoon (“Client”). The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1362, an attorney seeking to be relieved as counsel must file and serve forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Although Attorneys filed and served forms MC-051 and MC- 052, Attorneys failed to file and serve form MC-053. Additionally, forms MC-051 and MC-052 are incomplete. For form MC-051, Attorneys failed to complete section 2(b) and 4. For form MC-052, Attorneys failed to complete sections 3 – 7.

The motion is denied without prejudice to Attorneys properly filling out the requisite sections and filing and serving all three forms on Plaintiff and the other parties who have appeared in this action.

Attorneys are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

3. Landgren v. Green Living 23-1305159 The motion of plaintiffs Douglas Landgren, Monique Landgren, and Brett Ivey move for leave to file a proposed first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to file the original first amended complaint as a separate filing and serve a copy within 5 Court days.

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for leave to to file a proposed first amended complaint, a copy of which is attached to the motion as Exhibit A. Defendant Shai Ades does not oppose the filing of the proposed first amended complaint but asks that any order granting leave be conditioned on requiring plaintiffs to appear for deposition on dates certain and producing all documents requested in the deposition notices.

Amendment to a pleading may be permitted by a court on such terms as may be just after notice to the adverse party. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1). If the purpose or grounds for the amendment are not evident from the nature or content of the amendment, a declaration

containing the necessary information may be attached to show the facts that would support filing the amendment. See Plummer v. Superior Court (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 841.

A motion to amend must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, and state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading. CRC 3.1324(a).

In addition, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and specify: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons the request for amendment was not made earlier. CRC 3.1324(b).

Plaintiffs have substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1324. They seek to amend their initial complaint by adding two new causes of action against the individual defendant, who was added through a Doe amendment filed in June 2025. In the declaration filed with the moving papers, plaintiffs’ counsel declares that, during the course of the litigation, he learned that the individual defendant dissolved co-defendant Green Living based on fraudulent representations that it had no claims or liabilities against it.

To the extent that defense counsel, who previously represented Green Living and now only represents the individual defendant, contends that plaintiffs have not complied with their discovery obligations, defense counsel has remedies for such non-compliance in the Code. In addition, any prejudice to the individual defendant caused by permitting the amendment and the need to conduct additional discovery can be remedied by a continuance of the trial date.

Moving party to give notice.

4. Jarol v. Chehabi 25-1525670 Plaintiff Sherwin Jarol’s Motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Motion complies with the form requirements of CRC 3.1324. No objection based upon non-compliance with the Rul1 has been raised.

The Court has considered defendant Chehabi’s objections to granting leave to amend and concludes they are without merit.

A review of the parties’ papers shows no delay plaintiff or his counsel. Indeed, they show that when defendant’s counsel had the opportunity to move things along he didn’t. Argument concerning the merits of the new COAs will not be considered to defeat a motion for leave to amend. [See; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 CA4th 739, 760, 135 CR2d 433, 448 —“the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings”] Finally, defendant Chehabi as not shown any legally cognizable prejudice.