Jeffrey Salwen v. Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried

(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. N) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT N LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen to Respond to Request for Production, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Request for Production, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,320, payable by Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen to Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried to give notice.

Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen shall serve code-compliant responses to Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, within thirty (30) days of entry of this order.

Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried's Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $660, payable by Plaintiff Jeffrey Salwen to Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried and defense counsel within thirty (30) days of entry of this order. Defendants Malibu Sunrise Partnership and Marc Fried to give notice.

Case Number: 25SMCV04267 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Leidy Avalos Valles's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff Leidy Avalos Valles to give notice.

REASONING

The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a).) A party may discover the need to amend after all pleadings are completed (the case is "at issue") and new information requires a change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. (See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380.)

"The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result." (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)

Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint "at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial," absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [trial court's denial of leave to amend was proper where those factors were present].)

If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 [describing same].)

A motion for leave to amend must: