Motion for Leave to file 2AC
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Leave to file 2AC.
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff: Robert J. Stoll, Jr., Robert J. Stoll, III For Defendant Travelers: Aaron C. Agness, Shadie Maghareh Issue Motion for Leave to file 2AC.
The Motion is GRANTED. The Complaint was filed 5/1/25; Plaintiff alleges it suffered a series of water intrusions at its premises at 1150 Laurel Lane, San Luis Obispo, California, during a renovation project and incurred extensive damage to its building and the interior. Filed suit [50 page complaint - 2 counts] for breach of the contractual duty to pay a covered insurance claim, and the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. On 6/11/25 Plaintiff filed a FAC and on 7/11/25 Travelers filed its answer. On 4/27/26, Plaintiff Laurel Creek, LP, filed this motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Reported at length why it could not be filed earlier. On 7/10/26, Defendant Travelers filed its statement of non-opposition to the motion. The motion should be granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve the second amended complaint, in a form substantially the same as attached to the motion, on or before 7/23/26.
This is not complicated litigation for the very experienced lawyers in this case. The Court has spent considerable time on the issues already. The Court assumes the answer to the FAC will be adequate for a response to the SAC and no new responsive pleading needs to be filed by Travelers. Please confirm. ALERT: The Court has just signed the very recent stipulation to continue the trial date; the Court will not do so again.
Tentative Ruling: Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company v. California Coastal Commission Tentative Ruling: Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company v. California Coastal Commission
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?”