Le, et al. v. Thurston

Competition Law, prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sec. 17200.)

Zhao carried her burden in showing 3 Eleven's conduct was unfair. It wrongfully attempted to change the terms of the addendum, threatened eviction unless payment was made, and then took from Zhao (and retained) $19,798.20 to which it had no right. Again, 3 Eleven offers no particular argument or evidence to challenge Zhao's entitlement to judgment on this cause of action. The Court summarily adjudicates it in Zhao's favor.

Zhao's fourth cause of action is for conversion. The elements of a conversion cause of action are (1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of personal property, (2) defendant's wrongful exercise of dominion, and (3) resulting damages. (Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1020-1021.) It is undisputed that 3 Eleven still has the $19,798.20 that Zhao paid under protest. It has no right to it. Zhao demanded its return. That is enough to establish conversion. 3 Eleven has offered no evidence, beyond that previously discussed, to call this into question. Again, Zhao is entitled to summary adjudication.

Zhao's sixth cause of action is for unjust enrichment. The elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action are (1) the defendant's receipt of a benefit, (2) that it unjustly or wrongfully retains, (3) at the plaintiff's expense. (Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 723, 726.) Restitution based on unjust enrichment may be awarded in lieu of contract damages if a contract has been rendered ineffective or unenforceable for some reason. (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 388.) Given that the Court found the addendum to be an enforceable contract, there is no need for a quasi-contract theory of recovery. The Court denies Zhao's motion on those grounds.

Zhao's seventh and final cause of action is for declaratory relief. Declaratory relief requires (1) a person interested under a written instrument or a contract, or (2) a person who desires a declaration of their rights or duties with respect to another or regarding property, and (3) an actual controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1060.) Among other things, however, granting that relief is generally outside of this Court's jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 86.) So the Court denies it.

In sum, the Court DENIES Zhao summary judgment, but grants her summary adjudication as to her first, second, third, and fourth causes of action. Zhao is to give notice.

25, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Eisenman/25 CASE NAME: Le, et al. v. Thurston COMPL. FILED: 06-05-26 CASE NUMBER: 25STLC03781

NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Linh Le and Bao Nguyen RESP. PARTY: None MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473(a)) TENTATIVE RULING: The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Linh Le and Bao Nguyen's motion for leave to amend the complaint. Le and Nguyen are to give notice. SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 21, 2026 [] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of August 21, 2026 [] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS: Linh Le and Bao Nguyen filed a complaint seeking $25,000 in damages from Irma Thurston, trustee of the Clifford W. Thurston 2007 Family Trust. Thurston answered. Le and Nguyen now move for leave to file a first amended complaint that increases the amount of damages sought to $35,000.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) authorizes a court to allow a party to file an amended pleading "in furtherance of justice." If there is no prejudice to the opposing party, courts allow amendments liberally. (Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324, which requires a motion to amend to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading and "state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located." (Id., rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also include a separate declaration specifying (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. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

All else aside, the proposed first amended complaint indicates incorrectly that this action is unlimited. The only apparent change between the complaint and first amended complaint is a revision to the demand, from $25,000 to $35,000. But that leaves the matter within the Court's limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 85, subd. (a).)

Regardless of that error, the motion and declaration do not satisfy California Rules of Court rule 3.1324. The motion attaches a proposed first amended complaint but does not state exactly where the changes are to be made "by page, paragraph, and line number." (If there are any, beyond an attempt to increase the amount in controversy.) Additionally, the declaration from Le and Nguyen's counsel does not satisfy subdivision (b), because it does not state the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when exactly the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered, and why the request was not made earlier.

The declaration only states that the increased damages were discovered "after further investigation and discovery disclosed additional damages" and that the delay was due to counsel's "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect." There is no supporting evidence or further specificity regarding these statements.

The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Le and Nguyen's motion for leave to amend the complaint. Le and Nguyen are to give notice. | Home -->)" -->