Crawford v. Elegant Angel CA2/4

Filed 1/11/16 Crawford v. Elegant Angel CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

JIM CRAWFORD et al., B261897

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC550028) v.

ELEGANT ANGEL, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elizabeth Allen White, Judge. Reversed. Blut Law Group, Elliot S. Blut, Sara V. Katz for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Law Office of Anja Reinke, Anja Reinke for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and appellants Jim and Wendy Crawford (collectively, plaintiffs) sued defendants Elegant Angel, Inc. and Patrick Collins, Inc. (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, alleging that defendants failed to honor an agreement to either sell their business to plaintiffs or pay them $200,000 for their efforts to improve the business. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Rather than amend the existing causes of action, plaintiffs decided to proceed on a second amended complaint with three new claims and an additional defendant; therefore, they timely filed a motion requesting leave to file their proposed second amended complaint. The trial court, however, granted defendants’ ex parte application to dismiss the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2),1 based on plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint within the allotted time period. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to that dismissal, arguing that the court abused its discretion in dismissing their case and refusing to consider their motion for leave to amend. We agree and therefore reverse the dismissal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 1, 2014 and their first amended complaint (FAC) on July 15, 2014. The FAC alleged causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against defendants. According to the FAC, defendants own an adult industry production company called Elegant Angel Productions (the business). In August 2013, plaintiffs entered into a written contract with defendants for the purchase of the business. Plaintiffs alleged “[i]n reliance on the Contract,” they operated the business for ten months, “providing services and management that improved” the business. The contract allegedly provided that plaintiffs would receive $200,000 or the “last fifty features” produced by defendants as payment for their services in the event there was