National Commercial Recovery, Inc. v. Absolute Dollar, et al.

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 26) August 18, 2026 DEPARTMENT 26 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

If you desire to submit on the Court's tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is [email protected] The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

Please note that if you submit on the court's tentative ruling and do not appear, another party may appear to argue and the court may change its tentative ruling after the oral argument. If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the court will adopt its tentative ruling as its final ruling.

The deadline for a party to withdraw a pending motion, or take it off calendar, is TWO COURT DAYS before the hearing on the motion. The court will enter its tentative ruling on motions that remain on calendar after that deadline.

Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries to this e-mail will not receive a response.

Parties may schedule remote appearances for hearings on motions via LACourtConnect (https://mylacourt.org/laccwelcome). Remote appearances are not permitted for trial or Applications for Order for Appearance and Examination proceedings absent leave of court. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Defendant Lovepreet Kaur a/k/a LP Kaur's Motion for Leave to Amend and Substitute Correct Business Entity and Dismiss Individual Defendant is denied.

Analysis: Plaintiff National Commercial Recovery, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brought this action for money, common counts, and violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act against Defendants Absolute Dollar ("Defendant Absolute Dollar"), Vivesh Kochher a/k/a Vish Kochher a/k/a Vesh Kochher a/k/a Vivesh Kochhar ("Defendant Kochhar"), and Lovepreet Kaur a/k/a LP Kaur ("Defendant Kaur") on January 30, 2025.

Proofs of substitute service were filed by Plaintiff on February 10, 2025. Following Defendants' failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered Defendants' defaults on March 18 and 20, 2025. Defendant Kaur filed an Answer on April 16, 2025 and a Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment on April 29, 2025. Default judgment was then entered against Defendants on May 20, 2025.

Following transfer of the action to Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse, Defendant Kaur refiled the Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment and the Court granted it on August 11, 2025. (Minute Order, 08/11/25.)

On June 16, 2026, Defendant Kaur filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend and Substitute Correct Business Entity and Dismiss Individual Defendant. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 5, 2026.

Discussion

The request for leave to amend is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a), which 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..." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a)(1).)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and when the new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines of the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

Defendant Kaur moves for an order amending the Complaint to remove them from the action and substitute in a corporate entity, which they claim is the correct defendant. The Motion cites no legal authority that allows a party to amend the pleading of another party. The statutory scheme under which the Motion is brought makes it clear that amendment is reserved to the pleading party. Code of Civil Procedure section 472 states in relevant part: "A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court . . . ." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 472, subd. (a).) It follows that section 473, subdivision (a), which pertains to leave to amend by order of the court, likewise pertains to the pleading party. It would make no sense to give the opposing party control over the pleadings in the way proposed by Defendant Kaur's Motion. The appropriate means by which a responding party may object to a pleading is set forth in Chapter 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, Defendant Kaur provides no declaration in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. The supporting declaration does not explain what allegations are to be added and where, when the new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment, and why the amendment was not made earlier. The Court granted Defendant Kaur's Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment more than a year ago, yet the instant Motion to Amend only now seeks to challenge the allegations against them as an individual. Defendant Kaur provides no explanation for failing to demur to the Complaint, or failing to file a Motion for Summary Judgment in the year following their appearance in this action. Such a belated amendment, even if allowed to be sought by the responding party, would not be in furtherance of justice.

Conclusion

Defendant Lovepreet Kaur a/k/a LP Kaur's Motion for Leave to Amend and Substitute Correct Business Entity and Dismiss Individual Defendant is denied. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25STLC04665 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Laurack D. Bray's Motion for Sanctions is denied. Analysis: