Jefferson v. Alignment Healthcare USA, LLC

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 . . . by adding . . . the name of any party.” “Amendments to complaints under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a), are liberally allowed to substitute in plaintiffs with standing for original plaintiffs without standing.” (CashCall, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 273, 287, internal quotes omitted, citing Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004- 1011.)

This “general rule allowing substitution of new plaintiffs with standing in place of original plaintiffs without standing applies to class actions” and equally to “a plaintiff who initially had standing when the class action complaint was filed, but subsequently lost his or her standing” and to “a plaintiff who never had standing when the complaint was filed.” (Id. at pp. 288-289.)

Plaintiff shall give notice. 109 Jefferson vs. Alignment healthcare USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

2026-01546489 Motion to Compel Arbitration

In light of Plaintiff Jenny Jefferson’s Non-Opposition (ROA #21) to Defendant Alignment Healthcare USA, LLC’s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration of Plaintiff’s Claims and Dismiss Action (ROA #14), the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to arbitrate her individual claims against Defendant. Plaintiff’s class claims against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the rights of the absent putative class members. This action is otherwise STAYED until the arbitration is had pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

An ADR review hearing is scheduled for February 25, 2027 at 9:30AM in Department CX102. The parties shall submit a joint status report 10 days in advance of the hearing.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling. 110 NB CP Cincy, DST vs. Versity Invest, LLC

2026-01543537 Motion to Compel Mediation

All Defendants’ Motion to Compel Mediation and Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation is DENIED.

Defendants, as the moving parties, have not established that the Court has authority to compel mediation in this case.

In their opening brief, Defendants cite Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1775. (Mot. at p. 7.) However, CCP sections 1775, et seq. relate to the Civil Action Mediation Program, which is a separate court-ordered program that also applies only mandatorily to Los Angeles County Superior Court. (CCP, § 1775.2, subd. (a).) Defendants make no showing that this case even falls under CCP sections 1775, et seq.

Defendants also Evidence Code section 1116. (Mot. at p. 10.) But Evidence Code sections 1115, et seq. deal with the confidentiality of mediation proceedings, and section 1116, subdivision (a) explicitly states that