CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO VS. DAVID ANDREAS FUCHS

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 9 24-CIV-05601 CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO VS. DAVID ANDREAS FUCHS

CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO LAWRENCE S. VIOLA DAVID ANDREAS FUCHS DEBORAH A. STEVENS

PLAINTIFF CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff Corrina Renteria Aquino (“Plaintiff”) for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for Fraudulent Transfer/Voidable Transaction under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”) against Jennifer Rietfors (“Rietfors”), defendant David Andreas Fuchs’ wife.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides:

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.

Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge, but that discretion must be “exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “With respect to the amendment of pleadings, there has developed in this state a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” (Dunzweiler v.

Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 569, 576.) 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 (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [collecting citations.].) Recently, two different Courts of Appeal have reversed a trial court who refused leave to amend after a demurrer, even where it appeared doubtful that plaintiff could state a cause of action.

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 16 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ (Black v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 677; Sproul v. Vallee (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 285.) The same public policy considerations apply to this motion to amend. The court has discretion to deny leave to amend when the party seeking leave has been dilatory and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

Defendant fails to show that he will be prejudiced if this Motion is granted. Defendant claims allowing the proposed First Amended Complaint injects a whole new legal theory and that it would significantly expand the litigation. If Plaintiff filed a separate action, defendant would be defending two different lawsuits and he would be spending as much time on the litigation with increased inefficiencies. Defendant therefore has not established prejudice if the proposed First Amended Complaint is allowed.

Defendant’s remaining arguments are also unpersuasive. Defendant relies on Scholle v. Finnells (1916) 173 Cal. 372, to argue that the court may properly deny this Motion because it seeks to add a cause of action for fraudulent transfer. In Scholle, the plaintiff sought to file an amended pleading at trial. (Id., at p. 379.) Therefore, Scholle is distinguishable and does not provide a reason to deny the motion at this juncture in the litigation. Furthermore, Defendant’s contentions that Plaintiff may have difficulty serving Rietfors in another country and that Plaintiff has no available remedies under the UVTA are not relevant for purposes of this Motion. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v.

Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [the preferred practice is to permit amendment and allow the parties to test the legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings].) Further, issues relating to the trial of the case can be addressed later.

The First Amended Complaint is not deemed filed. It shall be filed and served on defendant David Andreas Fuchs (through his counsel) within ten days of notice of entry of motion. Plaintiff shall serve Jennifer Rietfors within six months of notice of entry of order. Plaintiff shall file an application to the Court for additional time to serve the complaint if service cannot be accomplished within that time period.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.