Motion for Leave to Amend; Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
22CV015544: BLACHA vs TAYLOR, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; filed by George Blacha (Plaintiff) CRS# 725136613348 in Department 25
Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Jenna Whitman
On Plaintiff George Blachas (Plaintiff) unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), the Court ORDERS THE PARTIES TO APPEAR.
The Court is tentatively inclined to rule as follows:
Plaintiffs unopposed Motion for Leave to File an SAC is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file and serve his SAC in a form conforming to Exhibit A to the Bullock Declaration no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 6/12/2026.
Defendants may elect to have their answer to the FAC deemed the answer to the SAC, or may file a new answer, including any new denials and/or affirmative defenses. The election shall be made by filing and serving the appropriate document by 6/17/2026.
The proposed SAC seeks to allege three new causes of action for, respectively, Deceit - Concealment, Deceit - Negligent Misrepresentation, and Civil Theft (Penal Code § 496) based on the existing factual allegations of Plaintiffs operative First Amended Complaint (FAC). The FAC already contains a cause of action for Fraud in the Inducement, which as pleaded actually appears to allege promissory fraud (CACI 1902), specifically that Defendant made a promise she would repay the $200,000 she borrowed from Plaintiff but never intended to pay him back. The proposed new eighth cause of action for Deceit Negligent Misrepresentation reiterates the promissory fraud claim and adds that Defendant affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiff both the total purchase price and that Defendant, as lender, would have a first mortgage on the boat..
These proposed new causes of action are all based upon the same general set of facts already pleaded in the FAC. Defendants have not filed any opposition asserting that amendment would prejudice them, and the Court can discern none. Plaintiff asserts that he acted diligently in pursuing the amendment due to the discovery of new facts at recent depositions, but has not identified those facts. Plaintiffs alternative assertion, that the delay was due to excusable neglect and not bad faith, is more plausible and a cognizable basis for delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50
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?”
Obtaining money through false pretenses with criminal intent constitutes a violation of [Penal Code §] 496(a). Johnson v. Connie, LLC (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 850, 85, citing Siry Investment, LP v. Farkhondepour (2022) 13 Cal.5th 333, 361-362. To prove theft, a plaintiff 22CV015544: BLACHA vs TAYLOR, et al. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; filed by George Blacha (Plaintiff) CRS# 725136613348 in Department 25 must establish criminal intent on the part of the defendant beyond mere proof of nonperformance or actual falsity. (Siri, supra, 13 Cal.5th at 361-362.) [T]he requisite criminal intent can be established with facts showing careful planning and deliberation. (Id. at 362.) A loan obtained via "a scam" is sufficient grounds for a civil theft cause of action. (Johnson, 113 Cal.App.5th at 855.)
Here, the SAC, like the FAC, alleges that Defendant expressly promised Plaintiff he'd have a first mortgage on the boat and represented to him that he'd be the only lender on the purchase of the boat. Instead, the seller demanded the first mortgage because the boat cost $375,000 and Defendant was using Plaintiff's money as a down payment while leading the seller to believe that the $200,000 was her money so that he would extend credit for the balance of the purchase price. She told the escrow officer that Plaintiff had agreed to receive a second mortgage, and the escrow officer did not confirm that with Plaintiff, presumably because Defendant did not provide the escrow officer with Plaintiffs contact information. (See proposed SAC at ¶¶ 20-47 at Bullock Dec.
Exh. A.) These allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes to allege a cause of action for civil theft for pleading purposes.
As such, there is no need for further motions practice concerning the adequacy of the pleadings and Defendants must file an answer, or an election to deem their answer to the FAC the response to the proposed amended complaint, forthwith.
Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion as set forth above