EDMUND LEE VS. HENGDA CONSTRUCTION INC.

7/09/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 14 of 27

2:00 PM LINE: 4 25-CIV-04433 EDMUND LEE VS. HENGDA CONSTRUCTION INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

EDMUND LEE MOHAMMED KASHEF HENGDA CONSTRUCTION INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION JAMES HUAN LY

PLAINTIFF EDMUND LEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the following reasons, Plaintiff Edmund Lee’s December 29, 2025 pro per motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is DROPPED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The record reflects that, after the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend on March 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment narrows the case by dropping several previously challenged causes of action, restructures the breach-of-contract claim, updates damages allegations, removes an individual defendant, and adds a statutory claim under Business and Professions Code section 7159.

The motion substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. The supporting declaration identifies the effect of the proposed amendment, why it is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered or reviewed, and why the request was not made earlier. No trial date has been set, no discovery cutoff has been set, and Defendant has not shown cognizable prejudice from the proposed amendment.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the Third Amended Complaint, in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Mohammed Kashef, within 10 days after service of notice of entry of this order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant Gate Group, Inc. shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. The Court alerts the parties to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), amended effective January 1, 2024, regarding the wording of proposed orders.