YE, et al. vs LY, et al.

25CV143762: YE, et al. vs LY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint CRS# 464716015232 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by Chundong Ye, Bluefield Construction on 05/19/2026 is Granted.

Background

OnSeptember 18, 2025, Plaintiff Chundong Ye and Bluefield Construction, Inc.filed a complaintagainst Defendants Chung Ly and CLY Investments LLC alleging breach of an oral partnership agreement entered in 2021 with Plaintiff Ye, breach of a contract with Bluefield Construction, Inc for labor and materials, and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.

On November 17, 2025, Defendants filed an Answer generally denying the allegations and raising twenty-six affirmative defenses.

OnMay 19, 2026, Plaintiffsfiledhis Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

OnAugust 12, 2026, Defendants filed their opposition and on August 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their reply.

Legal Standard

Acourt may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading on any terms as may be proper. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473(a); 576.) “[W]here there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Rickleyv. Goodfriend(2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1159.) “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howardv.Cnty. of San Diego(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Generally, disputesregardingthe legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment are best resolved by a pleading challenge or otherappropriate proceedings. (SeeKittredgeSports Co. v. Superior Court(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047-1048.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs request to amend the complaint to add factual allegations that the partnership proceeds were used to purchase two additional real properties, a vacant lot at 2340 E. 21st St., Oakland, CA 94601 and another house at 800 Trestle Glen Rd., Oakland, CA 94610, and adds additional partnership legal theories pertaining to the two additional properties. (MPA, p. 2.) The proposed First Amended Complaint further alleges that partnership proceeds were used to acquire a third property, 424 Pennsylvania Ave., San Francisco, CA 94107, and that Ly sold portions of his partnership interest to Ka Lok (Peter) Chiu and Paul Young. (Proposed FAC ¶¶ 25–27.)

The amended complaint also adds several new causes of action including constructive trust, resulting 25CV143762: YE, et al. vs LY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint CRS# 464716015232 in Department 518 trust, accounting, quiet title, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff has attached a copy of the proposed first amended complaint to the Declaration of John Chu at exhibit A, per CRC, Rule 3.1324.

Defendants argue that the motion violates CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)–(3), which requires the motion to state the allegations proposed to be added to or deleted from the prior pleading by page, paragraph, and line number, or to include a red-line version, and that the moving papers instead described the amendment only in general terms. Defendants further argue that the motion violates CRC, Rule 3.1324(b), which requires Plaintiffs to specify the effect of the proposed amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the new facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered, and the reasons why this amendment was not made earlier. (Opp. pp. 2- 3.) Defendants do not argue that the amendments were in any way prejudicial.

Plaintiffs urge that the motion is not prejudicial to Defendants and is made more than a year before the scheduled trial. Further, the amended complaint is attached to the declaration submitted with the motion even if the specific declaration does not address all the subparts of CRC, Rule 3.1324(b). (Reply, pp. 2-7.)

“Under section 473, subdivision (a)(1), a court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect .... This provision has received a very liberal interpretation by the courts of this state. That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901. Underlying this general rule of liberal construction of pleadings and of liberal allowance of amendments is the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on their merits.

Indeed, it is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleading so that he may properly present his case. Absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail.” (S.C. v. Doe 1 (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 365, 375–376 [internal citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted].)

Plaintiffs have failed to follow procedure specifically but did attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint to the declaration filed with their motion which provided notice of all the proposed amendments. Although the moving papers did not identify the proposed additions by page, paragraph, and line number or include a red-line version as CRC, Rule 3.1324(a)(2)–(3) contemplates, and the supporting declaration did not separately address each matter enumerated in CRC, Rule 3.1324(b), the attached proposed First Amended Complaint disclosed the substance of the proposed amendments, and Defendants’ opposition demonstrates their understanding of them. These procedural omissions are curable and, absent any showing of prejudice, do not justify denying leave. Prejudice is the controlling factor when reviewing a motion for leave to amend.

Defendants’ contention that these deficiencies cannot be cured by way of reply does not compel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV143762: YE, et al. vs LY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint CRS# 464716015232 in Department 518 a different result. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–1538.) Jay addresses the presentation of an entirely new evidentiary showing for the first time in reply and leaves the admission of such matter to the trial court’s discretion. Here, the Court does not rely on any new evidence submitted with the reply; the proposed First Amended Complaint on which the Court relies was submitted with the moving papers. Jay is therefore not implicated.

Defendantswill not be unfairly prejudiced against by the amendment since the trial is presently set for September 13, 2027, which is adequate time for Defendants to respond to the new allegations. Thus, the prejudice to the opposing parties does not outweigh the judicial policy liberally allowing amendments to pleadings. (KittredgeSports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1047-1048.)

ORDER

Plaintiffs’motion for leave to file afirst amended complaint is GRANTED.

Pleasenote that the proposed amended complaint submittedwith the moving papers is NOT deemed filed or served. Plaintiffs shall file and serve the proposedfirst amended complaint on or before September 28, 2026. The Defendants shall have 30 days from the date of service of the amended complaint to respond.

----

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV143762: YE, et al. vs LY, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint CRS# 464716015232 in Department 518

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)