Amhara Association of Los Angeles v. Wonfel Aid Inc., et al.

On August 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a)(1).)

A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff's motion does not comply with these requirements. Instead, it appears to solely be a proposed second amended complaint. It includes allegations and defendants that were already dismissed, with prejudice, via demurrer.

The motion to amend is DENIED. Clerk to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT506@lacourt.ca.gov indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 10th day of September 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court |

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT AMHARA ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES,

Plaintiff, vs. WONFEL AID INC., et al., Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 25STCV01545 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. September 10, 2026 |

On August 12, 2026, Cross-Defendant Anegu Ademe filed a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.

By presenting a motion to the Court, an attorney is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief that the motion is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7, subd. (b).)

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7, subd. (c).)

"A motion for sanctions brought by a party or a party's attorney primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, shall itself be subject to a motion for sanctions." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7, subd. (h).)

Cross-Defendant contends that the First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FACC")'s sole cause of action for declaratory relief "(1) lacks evidentiary support and is contradicted by Cross Complainants' own exhibits (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7, subd. (b)(3)); (2) is not warranted by existing law or any nonfrivolous argument for the extension of existing law (id., subd. (b)(2)); and (3) was presented and is being maintained for an improper purpose, including to harass Ms. Ademe and needlessly increase the cost of litigation." (Motion at p. 2.)

On April 10, 2026--long before Cross-Defendant served this motion on July 17, 2026--Cross-Complainants filed a motion for leave to amend the FACC. Those amendments included adding a second cause of action for conversion and additional factual allegations about Cross-Defendant. That motion was scheduled for a hearing the day after Cross-Defendant filed this motion for sanctions. Instead of waiting for the Court's final ruling on the motion to amend, Cross-Defendant filed this motion for sanctions at 9:59 p.m. the night before.

The Court does not make any finding on whether Cross-Complainants indeed violated Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b). The Court finds only that even if certain parts of the FACC constituted a violation, Cross-Complainants "appropriately corrected" the issues by seeking leave to amend on April 10, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 128.7, subd. (c)(1).)

Accordingly, this motion should not have been filed. The motion for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT506@lacourt.ca.gov indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar. Dated this 10th day of September 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court | Case Number: 25STCV15618 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: 506 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 14TH & VELASCO LLC, Plaintiff, vs.