DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2023-0312·yolo·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Zhou v. Hotel Winters, LLC

Motion for leave to file third amended complaint

Hearing date
Jul 24, 2026
Department
Eight
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffXinyao Zhou
DefendantHotel Winters, LLC

Ruling

Case: Zhou v. Hotel Winters, LLC Case No. CV2023-0312 Hearing Date: July 24, 2026 Department Eight 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiff Xinyao Zhou’s motion for leave to file third amended complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, 576; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) “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 and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v.

Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) First, plaintiff has satisfied the applicable procedural requirements. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; Zhou dec., ¶¶ 3-19, Exhibits A & B.) Second, defendant Hotel Winters, LLC has not established that it will be prejudiced by the proposed amendment, or the requested amendment is not warranted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a)(1) and/or 576. (See Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613; see also Magpali v.

Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.) Finally, if defendant believes that plaintiff’s causes of action are not meritorious, then it may test the amended complaint’s “legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

Plaintiff is directed to file the proposed third amended complaint, attached to her declaration, by July 31, 2026. (Zhou decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit B.)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

6 of 6

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share