| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendant FX10 INT’L, INC and Defendant Plan B Equipment Rentals LLC’s (Amended) Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Cross-Complaint
May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 3 23-CIV-01880 RUI DING VS. YIQIN WANG, ET AL
RUI DING JEREMY D. CLOYD FX10 INT’L, INC B OTIS FELDER
Defendant FX10 INT’L, INC and Defendant Plan B Equipment Rentals LLC’s (Amended) Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Cross-Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant FX10 Int’l, Inc dba Berryessa Water Sports and Plan B Equipment Rentals’ (collectively “BWS”) Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Amendment of a pleading may be allowed in the furtherance of justice and upon such terms as may be proper. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 576.) The court may allow amendment to a pleading in its discretion after notice to the adverse party. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 473(a)(1).)
California generally follows a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others, and absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will usually prevail. (Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154.)
Procedural Summary
However, in this matter trial is set for September 14, 2026. BWS seeks leave to amend to consolidate two previously filed cross-complaints, the July 19, 2023 cross-complaint against Yiqin Wang and Yincheng Zhao, and the March 6, 2025 cross-complaint against Lu Jin, Jiaqi Liu, Yigong Ma, and Yixin Chi, into a single pleading, and to add Cross-Defendant Jiabin Xiang and add a Breach of Contract cause of action arising from June 27, 2021 written rental waivers. BWS captions the proposed amended pleading the Second Amended Cross-Complaint, while Plaintiff contends that procedurally it is in fact the Third Amended Cross-Complaint.
BWS’s prior Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Cross-Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc was denied without prejudice for procedural reasons. This renewed motion no longer seeks nunc pro tunc relief, and the notice defects that existed with respect to the prior motion are not present here. The prior motion was also denied in part for failure to “adequately explain why leave was not sought before filing the proposed Second Amended Cross-Complaint on August 8, 2025, or why the amendment could not have been requested at the time of the March 2025 amendment.” (February 2, 2026 Minute Order.) Here, the Turner Decl. addresses these issues, at least as a procedural matter, at paragraphs 16-19. The motion was also previously denied because the procedural history of unauthorized amendments weighed against granting
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ discretionary relief. That issue remains, and must be weighed, along with potential prejudice to the opposing parties, against the liberal policy in favor of leave to amend.
Prejudice
Plaintiff and Defendant/Cross-Defendant Zhao each contend that granting leave to amend will moot the pending motions for summary adjudication of issues and motion for summary judgment, prejudicing the parties by requiring the motions to be prepared and scheduled again. BWS responds that the motions are not mooted, but in support of this position offers only that leave to amend is permissible while a dispositive motion is pending and the Court has discretion to manage its calendar. (Reply, at p. 8:13-17.)
This appears to concede that in fact the dispositive motions will be mooted by the proposed amendment. The scope of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication are defined by the pleadings. (See, e.g. Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438.) Here, the proposed amended pleading adds a new cause of action for breach of contract against all cross-defendants, in addition to adding a new cross-defendant, and thereby expands the necessary scope of dispositive motions.
New motions will likely have to be filed to address the broadened scope, prejudicing the moving parties both with additional attorneys’ fees which would not have been necessary had leave to file the proposed amended pleading been timely and properly sought, and with additional delay. The substantial rights of Plaintiff and of Defendant Yincheng Zhao therefore would be prejudiced by the filing of the proposed amended pleading at this late date.
Separately, there remains an inadequate showing why the amendment could not have been brought years earlier. When BWS filed its original Cross-complaint, it was certainly aware of the existence of the rental agreement by which the subject boat was rented from BWS as it was utilized for a contract claim, i.e. express contractual indemnity. Cross-complaint, ¶ 15-16. There is no adequate explanation for not pleading a breach of contract cause of action for the very same agreement already alleged on July 19, 2023.
Indeed, many of the contractual clauses allegedly breached appear to come from the same alleged contract which BWS would have always had a copy of. See, Motion pg. 38-39, attaching the proposed amended complaint and ¶ 21-22. Separately BWS blames a software upgrade for the delayed discovery of Jiabin Xiang and claims it had to conduct “manually review archived digital files” (Motion, pg. 14, line 17) for his waiver, but there is an inadequate evidentiary basis to demonstrate why archived digital files could not have been searched years ago to locate all relevant documentation from the day of the incident; nor a sufficient basis to explain why basic discovery could not have in short order revealed the names of every single participant from the day of the incident, after entering this case on July 19, 2023.
With the limited time before trial, the preparation and scheduling of new summary adjudication and summary judgment motions may also require a trial continuance, resulting in further prejudice to the parties. This request is belated, coming after the unauthorized filing of the Second Amended Crosscomplaint on August 8, 2025 (which though on file is of no effect) and the procedurally defective motion for leave to amend that was previously denied. In these circumstances, the liberal policy in favor of granting leave to amend is insufficient to overcome the clear prejudice to the other parties. Leave to amend is accordingly DENIED.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.