Asman, Bruce E. et al vs. Ponce, Cipriano et al

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as to Defendant. If no one requests oral argument, the Court is prepared to sign the order entitled "Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil" that the moving party lodged with the Court. This order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of a proof of personal service of the "Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil" on Defendant. The Court further directs counsel to attach to the Order an additional notice of the date, time, and Department of this Court for any future hearing dates for this case as calendared.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Asman, Bruce E. et al vs. Ponce, Cipriano et al Case No.: VCU313509 Date: August 13, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling: To continue the hearing to September 10, 2026; 8:30 am; D1 to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file further declaration in compliance with California Rule of Court 3.1325a&b (see below). Plaintiff shall file his supplemental declaration no later than August 27, 2026. Defendant may file a supplemental reply by September 3, 2026.

Facts On July 2, 2026, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiffs stated "THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARISE FROM THE SAME REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTION, INVOLVE THE SAME PARTIES, AND CONCERN THE SAME UNDERLYING DISPUTE THAT HAS BEEN BEFORE THE COURT SINCE THIS ACTION WAS FILED. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT SEEK TO INTRODUCE AN UNRELATED CONTROVERSY, BUT INSTEAD SEEKS TO CLARIFY THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND LEGAL THEORIES SO THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE RESOLVED ON THEIR MERITS."

Further that "PLAINTIFF ACTED PROMPTLY AFTER REVIEWING THE FILE TO PREPARE THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS NOT MADE FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY, BUT TO PERMIT THE COURT TO DECIDE THE CONTROVERSY BASED UPON A COMPLETE PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS AND APPLICABLE LEGAL THEORIES." Additionally, the motion states "THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CLARIFIES THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTS ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES RELATING TO THE PROPERTY DISPUTE, INCLUDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE DETATCHED GARAGE, THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION, AND THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED."

The declaration in support states: "4. THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ADDS AND CLARIFIES ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING, AMONG OTHER THINGS: A.FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION; B.FAILURE DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS C.PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND OWNERSHIP ISSUES CONCERNING THE DETATCHED GARAGE; D.EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY USE RIGHTS; E.NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF DUTY BY THE REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION." Further, that "6.THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND WAS NOT MADE EARLIER BECAUSE I WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL FOR MUCH OF THIS CASE.

MY FIRST ATTORNEY WAS RELIEVED FROM THIS CASE, I RETAINED BRIAN FOLLAND, WHO REPRESENTED ME FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS BEFORE HE WAS ALSO RELIEVED FROM THE CASE." Additionally, that "AFTER BOTH ATTORNEYS WERE NO LONGER REPRESENTING ME, I OBTAINED AND REVIEWED MY CASE FILE. DURING MY REVIEW, I DETERMINED THAT THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DID NOT FULLY INCLUDE ALL THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND LEGAL THEORIES THATI BELIEVED WERE: SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE IN MY POSSESSION. I ALSO IDENTIFIED INFORMATION I BELIEVE SHOULD BE INCLUDED TO ACCURATELY PRESENTS MY CLAIMS."

Further, Plaintiffs provide a summary of the proposed amendments contained in the first amended complaint. The first amended complaint appears to have been lodged on May 28, 2026. In opposition, Defendants argue that the declaration and motion provide no facts supporting why Plaintiffs were unaware of the facts not contained in the original complaint, which was verified by Plaintiffs.

Authority and Analysis The Court may, in the furtherance of justice, and upon any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 473, 576.) In general, California courts liberally exercise discretion to permit amendment of pleadings in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296 ["[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments."].)

Pursuant to this policy, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment before the Court, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is granted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

However, the Court finds a lack of compliance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1324. It is within the court's discretion to require compliance with Rule 3.1324 before granting leave to amend. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.) Rule 3.1324 regulates the content of the motion and supporting declaration as follows: "(a) Contents of motion A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (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. (b) Supporting declaration 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, while a copy of the proposed pleading appears lodged as of May 28, 2026, there appears no statement of allegations proposed to be deleted or added by page, paragraph and line number. The general summary on page 6 of the motion is insufficient under this Rule of Court. As to subsection (b), while the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs were previously represented by two separate counsel, there remains no statement of when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered. Plaintiffs state that upon review of the file after the termination of the attorney-client relationship with the second counsel, it was discovered the operative complaint lacked factual allegations and legal theories.

However, when the facts were discovered absent from the operative complaint is not the same as when the facts were actually discovered. It is not alleged, for instance, that discovery in this case uncovered additional facts that were not known at the time of the filing of the operative complaint. Moreover, as noted by Defendant, Plaintiffs' verified the complaint in this matter, which states Plaintiffs read the complaint and were aware of the contents.

However, the Court should not deny the motion unless the opposing party can show prejudice. (Kittredge Sports Company v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1048.) Prejudice exists where amendment would: (1) cause a delay of trial; (2) increase preparation costs; (3) change the focus of the complaint; or (4) increase discovery burdens. (Magpali, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) Additional discovery costs may support a claim for prejudice. (Miles v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 728, 739 ["Prejudice exists where the proposed amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in added costs of preparation and increased discovery burdens."].)

Additionally, w hether facts or legal theories are being changed and whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice "represent[] a different side of the same coin: If new facts are being alleged, prejudice may easily result because of the inability of the other party to investigate the validity of the factual allegations while engaged in trial or to call rebuttal witnesses. If the same set of facts supports merely a different theory --for example, an easement as opposed to a fee-- no prejudice can result." (City of Stanton v.

Cox (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1563.)

The Court will review and consider the supplemental pleadings in this matter prior to issuing a final ruling. A tentative ruling will issue prior to the next hearing date. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Graham, Michael vs. CA Farms, LLC Case No.: Lead: VCU3245716; consolidated with PCU325122 Date: August 13, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Demurrer and Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling: To overrule the demurrer. To grant the motion to strike, with leave, as to the words "treble damages" in paragraph 110 and the Grahams' prayer for "[t]reble damages under Penal Code Sec. 496," and, in all other respects, to deny the motion.

This is a demurrer and motion to strike by cross-defendant Alex Aretakis, targeted at the cross-complaint of Michael and Cynthia Graham (and other named cross-complainants) filed in PCU325122, which is now consolidated with these proceedings. Aretakis challenges 14 of the cross-complaint's 17 causes of action and moves to strike several portions.

I. DEMURRER Aretakis contends that while the cross-complaint "tells a sprawling story of alleged financial misconduct by Ron Cook and entities he controlled, ... it does not plead facts showing that Alex Aretakis personally [engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged]." Aretakis is correct, so far as the bulk of the allegations under the heading "FACUAL ALLEGATIONS" in the cross-complaint, but further allegations in the cross-complaint, specifically at subparagraphs (e) through (k) of paragraph 97, contain sufficient specificity as to wrongdoing on the part of Aretakis at the pleading stage. According, the demurrer is overruled in its entirety. Each of the challenged causes of action is addressed below.

First & Second Causes of Action - Intentional Misrepresentation & Concealment A cause of action for intentional misrepresentation must be supported by allegations of a false representation by a defendant, relied upon by the plaintiff to their detriment. (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 650].) Additionally, because "[f]raud allegations ' "involve a serious attack on character," [they must be] pleaded with specificity. ... The particularity requirement demands that a plaintiff plead facts which ' " 'show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.' " ' (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469 [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 619], citations omitted.)

There are "certain exceptions which mitigate the rigor of the rule requiring specific pleading of fraud," including that "less specificity is required when 'it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.' " (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 217 [197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660](Committee), citations omitted.) Additionally, in circumstances where, as here, myriad representations are alleged as part of a coordinated scheme over a lengthy period of many years, "considerations of practicality enter in" such that a serial listing of alleged misrepresentations specified by time, place and manner "provide less effective notice and [are] less useful in framing the issues [as compared to] a shorter, more generalized version." (Ibid.)

Ultimately, the court considers the particularity requirements to fraud claims in light of the "two purposes" it serves. (Id., at p. 216.) "The first is notice to the defendant, to 'furnish the defendant with certain definite charges which can be intelligently met.' " (Ibid., citations omitted.) Additionally, "[t]he pleading of fraud ... is also the last remaining habitat of the common law notion that a complaint should be sufficiently specific that the court