Motion to Lift the Stay; Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint
34-2022-00317545-CU-PO-GDS: Richard Holben, as Heir-at-Law and Successor-in- Interest of David Holden, Deceased vs. Windsor El Camino Care Center, LLC 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Department 53
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. ___________________________________________________________________________
The Court rules on the Motion to Lift the Stay and a First Amended Cross-Complaint, filed by Plaintiff Richard Holben, as follows.
This case arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs decedent, David Holben, on January 13, 2021, which alleged resulted in decedents death on March 6, 2021. Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint on March 29, 2022 against Defendant Windsor El Camino Care Center, alleging causes of action for (1) Abuse of an Elder/Dependent Adult; (2) Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1430(b); (3) Survival Action; (4) Wrongful Death; (5) Professional Negligence/Medical Malpractice; (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (7) Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Intentional Misrepresentation/Fraud; and (9) Unjust Enrichment. Windsor El Camino filed a petition to compel arbitration, which the Court denied on September 30, 2022, and Windsor filed an appeal, resulting in a stay in this action. The stay remains in place.
While appeal was pending, Windsor filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Case No. 1:23-bk-11200-VK). Windsor thereafter removed the case to the bankruptcy court of the Eastern District of California. Based on the proceedings in the bankruptcy court, the parties reached an agreement[1] that resulted in the Eastern District remanding the case back to this Court; Windsor being dismissed from this case with prejudice (see 2/27/2025 Request for Dismissal); and Windsor dismissing its appeal regarding the petition to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal issued remittitur to this Court on April 21, 2025.
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?”
Plaintiff now requests that the stay be lifted and that he be permitted to file a First Amended Complaint to add the following as Defendants: Windsor Norcal 13 Holdings
34-2022-00317545-CU-PO-GDS: Richard Holben, as Heir-at-Law and Successor-in- Interest of David Holden, Deceased vs. Windsor El Camino Care Center, LLC 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Department 53
LLC; S&F Management Company, LLC; Windsor Healthcare Management LLC; Antelope Holdings I LLC; 9560 Pico LLC; Pico AR LLC; Samson Holdings LLC; Lee Samso;: Lawrence Feigen; Avrohom Tress; Pamela Shaw; Donny Feldman; Aaron Robin; Lee Samson 2015 Irrevocable Delaware Trust FBO Aliza Rosenstei;: Lee Samson 2015 Irrevocable Delaware Trust FBO Avital Slifki; and, Lee Samson 2015 Irrevocable Delaware Trust FBO Daniel Samson.
As an initial matter, based on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals as well as the represented conduct of the Eastern District of California in the bankruptcy action and the dismissal of Windsor, it appears that there is no further basis for continuing the pending stay.
The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473(a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend based on a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same case. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Thus, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v.
Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 ['instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.'].) Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)
A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (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) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).)
Plaintiff does not seek to add any causes of action to the amended pleading; instead, the proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC) removes Windsor as a Defendant, identifies each of the proposed new Defendants, and adds alter ego allegations concerning these same Defendants. (See Hennesseys Tavern, Inc. v. Am. Fair Filter
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00317545-CU-PO-GDS: Richard Holben, as Heir-at-Law and Successor-in- Interest of David Holden, Deceased vs. Windsor El Camino Care Center, LLC 08/27/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Department 53
Co. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1358-1359 [noting that alter ego theory is not a stand-alone claim for substantive relief but instead is a remedy to hold the alter ego defendants liable on the obligations of the corporation where the corporate form is being used to escape personal liability, sanction fraud, or promote injustice].) All underlying facts remain unchanged.
The procedural history of the case reflects that Plaintiff was unable to file the instant motion at an earlier time since the case was stayed. However, upon the Third District Court of Appeal issuing its remittitur, Plaintiff filed this motion within two weeks. Plaintiff also submits a redlined copy of the proposed FAC.
Here, the Court concludes it is in the interests of justice to permit the amendment requested. The proposed amendment serves to bring all claims between Plaintiff and the proposed Defendants into a single action. Further, there is no evidence of prejudice to the proposed Defendants, as the action has been pending for just over three years, with much of that being stayed due to the automatic stay provisions imposed by the filing of an appeal and proceedings in the bankruptcy court. In light of the history of the proceedings, and the stays in particular, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has been dilatory or engaged in undue delay in filing the instant motion. Further, no trial date has been set and therefore there is ample time for the proposed Defendants to meaningfully engage in the discovery process and defend themselves in this action.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Navigators motion is GRANTED. The Court will not deem the proposed First Amended Complaint filed. Rather, Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint no later than September 8, 2025. Though not required by statute or any Rule of Court, Plaintiff also shall attach this Minute Order to the filing and service of the First Amended Complaint.
This Minute Order is effective immediately. No further order shall be required. (CRC Rule 3.1310.)
[1] The agreement was limited to Windsor El Camino Care Center (the debtor) and did
not have any impact with regarding to Plaintiffs rights or claims against any non-debtor third party that could be added to the action.