Motion for Leave to Amend
(2) Case number 30-2024-01407963 (Batoon vs. The Learning Light Foundation, Inc., et al.) (the “Batoon Action”); and (3) Case number 30-2026-01568593 (The Learning Light Foundation, Inc. vs. Tayfour) (the “5671 Action”).
In the Sutcliffe Action, what is currently before the Court is the OSC re Preliminary Injunction, set at the request of Ms. Tayfour, regarding access to and control of Learning Light Foundation, Inc. (“LLF”) funds and accounts, among other things.
In the Batoon Action, what is currently before the Court is the continued hearing on the Amended Motion to Disqualify James Lawrence Hanger III as Counsel of Record, regarding the assertion by Ms. Tayfour’s counsel that she is counsel for LLF, and that Mr. Hanger is not authorized to represent LLF.
In the 5671 Action, what is currently before the Court is the continued Case Management Conference.
The merits of both the OSC re Preliminary Injunction and the Amended Motion to Disqualify, etc. are in substantial part dependent upon who is authorized to act for LLF and has the right to hire and direct counsel for LLF. The Court will thus address that issue forthwith, in the 5671 Action. An imminent date for an evidentiary hearing in the 5671 Action will thus be set at this hearing. The Court, in conformity with the articles and bylaws to the extent feasible, will determine the person(s) entitled to the office of director and/or may order a new election to be held or appointment to be made.
In this process, the Court will have to determine the validity of the issuance of memberships and the right of persons to vote and may direct such other relief as may be just and proper at that hearing. 8 Batoon v. The See above. Learning Light Foundation, Inc. 9 The Learning See above. Light Foundation, Inc. v. Tayfour 10 Trejo v. Trejo The Motion for Leave to Amend brought by Cross-Complainant Carmen Trejo is DENIED, without prejudice to a motion which: (1) Complies with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324; and (2) Attaches the Complaint for which leave will be sought.
Cross-Complainant Carmen Trejo seeks leave to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint which adds a claim for Partition. (Motion: 3:23-24.)
Cross-Defendants do not oppose the substantive amendment requested. (Opposition: 6:16-17.) Nor do Cross-Defendants appear to dispute the timeliness of the motion; however, as noted by Cross- Defendants, Cross-Complainant failed to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324
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?”
The Motion for Leave to Amend did not identify the changes in the proposed pleading as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a). Nor did the Declaration of Brian Ballo comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(b).
While the Supplemental Declaration of Brian Ballo attempts to address this defect, “[i]t is elementary that points raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered by the court.” (Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Intern. Ltd. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1161.) Additionally, a trial court may require compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324. (See Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)
In addition to the above, the Supplemental Declaration of Brian Ballo indicates Cross-Complainant Carmen Trejo wishes to alter the proposed pleading attached to the motion. (See ¶3 of Supplemental Ballo Declaration.) Counsel’s Supplemental Declaration requests leave to attach a new Exhibit F to the proposed pleading. (Ibid.) Additionally, “request is made to add a new paragraph 18 attaching the Litigation Guarantee as Exhibit ‘G’ to the FACC, once leave to amend is granted.” (¶3 of Supplemental Ballo Declaration.)
These newly proposed alterations deprive Cross Defendants of the opportunity to respond thereto. Moreover, the newly submitted requests ask the Court to approve a complaint which has not, technically, been submitted.
Based on the above, and to avoid any due process implications, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice, as specified above.
Cross-Defendants to give notice. 11 Sweiss v. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Holbrook cross-defendant Randa Sweiss as to the Cross Complaint filed by Merrill Holbrook. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding." (Code Civ. Proc., §437c(a)(1).) "The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact." (Code Civ.
Proc., §437c(c).)
“[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no