| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To Amend Cross-Complaint
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23611219 - December 8, 2025 Hearing date: December 8, 2025 Case number: CGC23611219 Case title: PAKAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. VS. ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR LLC ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23611219 | Case Title: | | PAKAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. VS. ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR LLC ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-08 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To Amend Cross-Complaint **Redacted** | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for December 8, 2025, line 1. DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH SEMICONDUCTOR LLC'S Motion For Leave To Amend Cross-Complaint.
Defendant and cross-complainant Robert Bosch Semiconductor LLC's motion for leave to amend cross-complaint is granted. Bosch shall file the proposed amended cross-complaint attached as Exhibit A to its amended notice of motion forthwith and in no event later than December 12, 2025.
The court exercises great liberality in permitting amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) "[I]t is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case." (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [citation simplified].) The court may deny amendment where there is undue delay and prejudice. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) It may also deny amendment where a proposed claim is futile. (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 828.)
The court finds no undue delay, prejudice, or futility. Bosch presents evidence that the basis for the new claims were learned in October depositions. Although the amendment adds tort claims and fraud, it does not change the tenor or nature of the case in that the pled misrepresentations relate to the formation of a contract that is already at issue. Pakal contends there is prejudice in the delay but offers no specifics. Pakal contends that the individual defendant added by the cross-complaint will suffer prejudice but does not identify discovery he would take that will be foreclosed.
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?”
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |