Romit Chakraborty, PHD v. PsiQuantum Corp. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 1, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 6 25CV464552 Martin Miller, Defendant James Hann’s motion to quash service of summons. (Code Civ. M.D. v. James Proc., § 418.10.) Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. The original Hann et al. proof of service of summons was defective because there was no declaration of diligence. Although plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion, he filed a new proof of service of summons on August 27, 2026, indicating service on an office manager (“Trisha Doe”) at the address for the Hann Law Firm.

That proof of service of summons indicates the process server attempted personal service on three occasions, and that a copy of the summons and complaint were thereafter mailed to defendant Hann. Based on that supplemental information, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Any challenge to the sufficiency of the August 2026 proof of service of summons must occur by separate motion. The court will prepare the order. Line 7 25CV476927 Fidelity National Interpleader Fidelity National Title Company’s motion for order of Title Company discharge. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 386.) Interpleader does not seek attorney fees v. YNOT related to the motion. Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed. Investments, Interpleader served all defendants with the summons and complaint. All LLC et al, defendants have answered the complaint, asserting interests in the $10,000 deposited by interpleader. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to submit proposed order. Line 8 26CV488244 Romit Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. Chakraborty, PHD v. PsiQuantum Corp. et al.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 8 Case Name: Romit Chakraborty, PhD. v. PsiQuantum Corp. et al. Case No.: 26CV488244

This is an action for breach of contract (a settlement agreement) brought by selfrepresented plaintiff Romit Chakraborty (Plaintiff) against defendant PsiQuantum Corporation (Defendant), his former employer.

The original complaint was filed in March 2026. The operative first amended complaint (FAC), alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract (the settlement agreement), was also filed in March 2026. There are no exhibits attached to the FAC. Neither the original complaint nor the FAC allege a specific amount of damages sought by Plaintiff.

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint in May 2026. Defendant then filed a motion to reclassify the case as a limited civil matter, based on statements from Plaintiff that the damages he sought were equivalent to $10,000. That motion is currently set for hearing in December 2026.

At issue is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC), which he filed after defendant’s motion to reclassify the case and without first meeting and conferring with Defendant. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

A trial court has discretion to “allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Leave to amend can be denied if the party seeking amendment unnecessarily delayed the motion, or if the delay prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

DISCUSSION

In the proposed SAC (a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff’s supporting declaration) Plaintiff seeks “to add allegations and new causes of action based on [Defendant’s] postagreement issuance of an incorrect 2025 Form 1099-NEC for the non-wage settlement payment that the agreement required to be reported on Form 1099-MISC, Box 3, and to clarify that the amount in controversy exceeds $35,000.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:17-20,)

The proposed SAC adds two additional causes of action: (1) a second cause of action for breach of contract, based on the brief delay in providing Plaintiff with the correct Form 1099; and (2) a cause of action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that the submission of the incorrect Form 1099 was a breach of contract (the settlement agreement). (See exhibit A to Plaintiff’s declaration.)

Defendant’s opposition argues that the motion for leave to amend is an attempt to undercut Defendant’s previously filed motion to reclassify. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff violated local court rules by filing and setting the motion without first meeting and conferring. The court admonishes Plaintiff to comply with all applicable laws and court rules in the future. But even assuming some level of gamesmanship, that does not establish that the 12

proposed amendment will prejudice Defendant. No trial date has been set, meaning the parties have adequate time for discovery. Any challenge to the adequacy of the SAC can be addressed through a demurrer or other pleading challenge. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.’ ”].)

The motion for leave to file the proposed SAC is granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed SAC is granted.

Plaintiff must separately file and serve the second amended complaint, no later than September 11, 2026.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

13