Charel Winston et al vs Peter Nguyen et al

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240

DATE: May 29, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 8 21CV385110 Charel Winston et al vs Peter Nguyen et Motion: Leave to Amend al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 8 for tentative ruling. LINE 9-11 24CV448245 Hamid Khazaeli vs Julie Cliff et al Motion Compel/Sanctions/Seal

Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 9 for tentative ruling.

9:01 CALENDAR 9:01 LINE 1 21CV392258 Hsin Chu vs Hak Chun Ng Hearing: Order of Examination

Due to a Notice of Bankruptcy Stay filed for Judgment Debtor on April 22, 2026, this matter is OFF CALENDAR. 9:01 LINE 2 25CV471942 Jun Lu vs Rozita Dadgostari Motion: Withdraw as Attorney

Based on Substitution of Attorney filed May 4, 2026, this motion is MOOT and OFF CALENDAR.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 8

Case Name: Charel Winston et al v. Peter Nguyen et al Case No.: 21CV385110

Introduction

On July 2, 2021, Plaintiffs Charel Winston (“Charel”) and Alma Marie Winston (“Alma”; collectively, “Plaintiffs”)2 filed the original Complaint against Defendants Peter Nguyen and The Ha Vu Le (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant; (3) conversion; (4) fraud; (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (6) negligence.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to allege the following causes of action: (1) wrongful eviction / abuse of unlawful detainer process; (2) concealment; (3) fraudulent inducement and abuse of process; (4) fraudulent enrichment and constructive trust; (5) promissory estoppel / partial performance; (6) survival action for elder abuse, neglect, and civil rights violations; (7) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) / unlawful seizure and retaliation against disabled individuals; (8) conversion and unjust enrichment; (9) trespass to chattels; (10) declaratory relief; (11) tortious interferences / civil conspiracy / abuse of process / retaliatory suppression of peaceful exit; and (12) trespass and violation of tribal sovereignty. (See generally, Motion at p. 191.) There are several exhibits attached to the proposed FAC. (Id. at pp. 37-190.)

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that leave to amend should be denied because (1) Plaintiffs delayed in seeking amendment; (2) Defendants would be unduly prejudiced by the addition of multiple new claims on the eve of trial; and (3) the proposed claims are barred given the El Dorado County Superior Court’s rulings and recorded title documents.3 (Opposition at p. 2:2-5.)

Trial is set for August 3, 2026.

Discussion

Legal Standard

A trial court has wide discretion, “in furtherance of justice,” to “allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “It is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding

2 The Court refers to the plaintiffs by their first names for purposes of clarity. No disrespect is intended. (See Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136, fn. 1.) 3 Plaintiffs urge the court to disregard Defendants’ opposition papers because they were improperly served (i.e., The Ha Vu Le, a party to this action, executed the proof of service). The court will overlook this procedural defect because Plaintiff filed and served a reply responding to the merits of the opposition. (See Tate v. Super. Ct. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 930 [“It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion.”]) 20

so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163, citations and quotations omitted.)

Nevertheless, if the party seeking amendment has been dilatory and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the trial court has discretion to deny leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or would add costs of preparation, an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) “Prejudice will not be presumed but must be affirmatively demonstrated through production of evidence.” (L&S Framing, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 995, 1012.)

Analysis

Insufficient Supporting Declarations

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b) requires declarations made in support of a motion for leave to amend to state “(1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” The failure to comply with rule 3.1324(b) may be grounds to deny a motion for leave to amend. (See Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ declarations fail to state the effect of the amendment and why the amendment is necessary and proper. Furthermore, while both Plaintiffs describe preparing the nineteen exhibits appended to the proposed amended pleadings as “time-consuming”, “labor intensive”, and “painstaking work”, Plaintiffs do not disclose when these efforts began, nor when they discovered the facts underlying the new allegations. (See Motion at pp. 20:17-19, 24:2-3.) Plaintiffs simply assert in their memorandum that the facts became available only after the filing of the original Complaint. This is not sufficient.

Plaintiffs also do not clearly or adequately explain why the request could not be made sooner. Charel vaguely declares, “Following the filing of the original Complaint in this action” she was unable to prosecute this action for “a period exceeding fourteen consecutive months.” (Motion at p. 18:18-20.) Alma also vaguely declares, “Following the filing of the original Complaint”, she was ill for an unspecified period. (Id. at p. 22:18-20.) Aside from the Plaintiffs’ self-serving declarations, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs received a medical diagnosis preventing them from participating in this action.

Moreover, it is unclear from the declarations when exactly Plaintiffs took their medical leave. From the reply, Plaintiffs appear to suggest that Charel was restricted from litigating this action in 2024. (Reply at p. 5:20-21.) Plaintiffs, however, do not explain why the request for leave to amend could not have been made prior to 2024, when the action had already been pending for almost three years. One plaintiff’s inability to prosecute the case for fourteen months, without more, does not excuse a nearly five-year delay in seeking amendment.

Given the mandatory nature of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b) and Plaintiffs’ failure to comply, the motion for leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice. 21

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice.

The court will prepare the Order.

- oo0oo -

22