CA-MRE Holdings, LLC vs. Sierra Creek, LLC

4 CA-MRE Holdings, Motion for Leave (re Third Amended Complaint) LLC vs. Sierra Creek, LLC No Tentative. The parties should however be prepared at the hearing to discuss the procedural history of this action, including the following:

Over the last five+ years, Plaintiff has amended the complaint numerous times and trial has been continued numerous times. Specifically, Plaintiff CA-MRE HOLDINGS, LLC filed this action on 4/27/21. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 9/1/21 and shortly thereafter, the original trial was scheduled for 9/12/22. After the court sustained a demurrer with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on 3/14/22. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application (and due to a cross- complaint filed on 4/26/22), trial was continued to 3/10/23.

Pursuant to stipulations, trial was thereafter continued to 3/11/24, and then to 10/14/24, and then to 7/7/25, and then to 12/8/25, and then to 4/20/26. When continuing the trial from 12/8/25 to 4/20/26, the court stated, “No further continuances”. (ROA 202.) Nonetheless, the court continued the trial yet again, to 8/31/26 based upon the stipulation of the parties and the court’s congested calendar. (ROA 248.)

Trial is currently set for 8/31/26, the discovery deadline is quickly approaching, and Defendants have stipulated to continue the 5-year rule to 10/27/26.

Now with trial quickly approaching (again) and despite that the action is more than five years old, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that would among other things, “add[] a direct breach of contract claim by CA-MRE against Sierra Creek, LLC for breach of a 2018 Assignment agreement (attached to the proposed TAC as Exhibit C); add[] an accounting claim; and revise[] the fraud claims.” (Not. of Mot, at p. 2, lines 8-16.)

5 Stern vs. Motion for Leave (re Cross Complaint) Comdirect, Inc. The court GRANTS Defendants COMDIRECT, INC., ZACHARY LINDEN, and BLAKE BENJAMIN’S unopposed motion for

14