Leave to file first amended complaint
Third, Plaintiff appears to suggest that the court of appeal opinion in a different, related case, is somehow binding in this case, where the record before the court and the parties are different. “Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court's decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Iraheta (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1242 (emphasis added)). “Thus the law- of-the-case doctrine “prevents the parties from seeking appellate reconsideration of an already decided issue in the same case absent some significant change in circumstances.” (Id.) Plaintiff has not offered any authority to establish that an unpublished appellate opinion in another case becomes law of the case in this case.
For these reasons, the motion must be denied.
The court also notes that multiple upcoming motions are set for August 17, 2026, in this case. The caption pages on the motions still identify N16 as the department in which these motions are being heard. However, as set forth in the April 22, 2026, Minute Order on related cases, all of these motions have been reassigned to Department C27. As such, those motions will be heard in C27.
Moving party to give notice.
13 Tennis vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Comprehensive Manufacturing Plaintiff Jordan Tennis seeks leave to file a first amended complaint Services, that would remove Victory Holdco, LLC as a defendant, add L.L.C. Defendant Amtech Elevator Services (previously Doe 1), and add a cause of action for Strict Products Liability and Products Liability Negligence against Defendant Comprehensive Manufacturing Services, LLC dba Courion. (“CMS”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed seeking leave to amend. Plaintiff had knowledge of the basis for their new cause of action earlier given that Plaintiff has known that CMS was the seller of elevator parts. Indeed, CMS responded to written discovery, detailing this fact in August 27, 2025, discovery responses. Defendants argue that Defendants will suffer prejudice if the court allows leave to amend because Defendants already have pending motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication and an amended complaint would moot those motions.
Leave to amend should be granted liberally to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (
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?”
Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) “The power to permit amendments is interpreted very liberally as long as the plaintiff does not attempt to state facts which give rise to a wholly distinct and different legal obligation against the defendant.” (Herrera v. Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 255, 259.) “Allowing the filing of [_] an amendment is in furtherance of justice and in keeping with the fundamental policy of our courts that cases should be decided on their merits.” (Hirsa, supra, at p.490.)
It is “an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) “A trial court has broad discretion to allow the filing of amendments to pleadings to conform to proof,” including “after a trial has been concluded” to conform to the proof. (Nelson v. Gaunt, 125 Cal. App. 3d 623, 636 (1981)).
Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. Under California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (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) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
Here, Plaintiff has substantially complied with the procedural requirements for leave to amend. However, the court is hesitant to excuse Plaintiff’s delays in seeking leave until after Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Indeed, Plaintiff’s “explanation” for not seeking leave earlier does not appear compelling. The court is also not impervious to the prejudice that Defendants face, particularly given that Defendants have already moved for summary judgment and that Plaintiff’s late-filed motion essentially seeks to moot those
motions. (See Melican v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176 (trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend when facts were known to plaintiff earlier and because “[i]t would be patently unfair to allow [plaintiff] to defeat [defendant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a ‘moving target’ unbounded by the pleadings.”).
Nevertheless, given the liberal policy of allowing amendments and allowing a party to proceed on the merits, and given that Plaintiff sought leave to amend before the hearing on the motions for summary judgment, the court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. (See e.g., Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257 [“[I]f a plaintiff wishes to introduce issues not encompassed in the original pleadings, the plaintiff must seek leave to amend the complaint at or prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.”].)
Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit #1 to the Declaration of Timothy Peabody Jr. within 7-days of the hearing on this matter.
Plaintiff to give notice.
14 Colligan vs. TENTATIVE RULING: So-Cal Boys Restaurant Motion to Quash Group Inc. Specially Appearing Doe Defendant Kenneth Charles Koch (“Koch”) moves to quash the service of summons on Koch. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
1) Legal Standard
It is common practice to include fictitious names as defendants to allow for flexibility in pleading and service. Once the defendant’s true name has been discovered, however, the complaint “must be amended accordingly.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 474.) Section 474 provides:
When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint, or the affidavit if the action is commenced by affidavit, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly; provided, that no default or default judgment shall be entered against a defendant so designated, unless it appears that the copy of the summons or