STS FOUNDATION, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION VS. READ

action by a covered employer to avoid responsibilities under CFRA.”

Accordingly, Defendant has not demonstrated Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be futile.

While Defendant also contends Defendant provided her with leave that exceeded the time CFRA would have required, that is a factual determination not appropriate for purposes of this motion.

Defendant further contends Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b). Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration submitted in support of the motion states on or about 1/12/26, the parties participated in mediation and “[t]hrough the course of preparing for mediation, Plaintiff learned additional facts supporting claims for interference and retaliation in violation of the CFRA.” (Katz Decl., ¶ 5.) Counsel’s statement that facts were discovered while “preparing for mediation” is ambiguous and does not adequately identify when such facts were discovered. Similarly, Plaintiff’s declaration does not address why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

5. STS FOUNDATION, A NOT- FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION VS. READ 2025-01537238 1. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS Defendant John Crist’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Crist is dismissed from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: [¶] (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 418.10(a)(1).) “[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a nonresident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendant and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Sup.Ct. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) The burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. (Buchanan v. Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362.) The evidence that jurisdiction is proper must be proved by admissible evidence. (Rivelli v.

Hemm (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 402.) Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion and, thus, has not submitted any admissible evidence of jurisdictional facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Crist. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden of proof and jurisdiction cannot be established. Therefore, Crist’s Motion is granted.

2. MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS Defendant International Cultural Exchange Services, Inc.’s (Cultural Exchange) Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Cultural Exchange is dismissed from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion and, thus, has not submitted any admissible evidence of jurisdictional facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Cultural Exchange. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden of proof and jurisdiction cannot be established. Therefore, Cultural Exchange’s Motion is granted.

6. MONTE MAC NO. 1 VS. POTTER 2024-014440030 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Monte Mac No. 1, LP’s Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Monte Mac No. 1, LP (“MM1”) seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to add two causes of action for breach of contract/failure to negotiate in good faith [letter agreement] and promissory estoppel, provide further context regarding the nature of MM1’s claims, and add allegations regarding alleged misconduct by Defendants that post-dates MM1’s FAC.

Defendants Jeffery W. Potter, as Trustee of the Jeffery W. Potter Trust Created Under the Bypass Trust of the Robert and Elizabeth Potter Living Trust Dated September 11, 2001, and as Trustee of the Jeffery W. Potter Trust Created Under the Surviving Trustor’s Trust of the Robert and Elizabeth Potter Living Trust Dated September 11, 2001 (collectively, “Potter”) opposes the motion arguing unexplained delay, futility and prejudice.

The court may, in the furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow amendment of a complaint at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473(a)(1), 576.) There is a general policy of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings at any stage of the litigation. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488.) Denial is rarely justified. (Morgan v. Sup.Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Here, MM1’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. The motion is supported by a declaration from its counsel who declares that amendment is necessary so that the operative pleading more accurately reflects the parties’ agreements, as well as the conduct forming MM1’s grounds for relief. (Loh ¶ 7.) MM1’s counsel further declares that the issues raised in Potter’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”) further suggest that leave to amend is warranted to the extent that Potter contends