ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al.

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Aspen Technologies Group LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises out of a contract between Plaintiff and Defendants California Department of Technology (“CDT”) and California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants contracted with it for the development, deployment and hosting of a cloud-based contact center and automation services for DMV. (FAC, ¶ 10.) On August 14, 2025, the Court issued an order on Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. As part of the order, the Court, in its own discretion, struck the Breach of Contract – Settlement Agreement and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Settlement Agreement causes of action because Plaintiff had not obtained leave to amend to add these causes of action. (Minute Order, August 14, 2025.)

The Court explained that Plaintiff must file a properly noticed motion for leave to amend. (Ibid.)

No trial date is currently scheduled.

Plaintiff seeks leave to add the Breach of Contract – Settlement Agreement and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing – Settlement Agreement causes of action.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with CRC Rule 3.1324.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473 authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice, and it is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Sup. Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings to prevail]; Klopstock v.

Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Here, Defendants make no argument (and provide no evidence) that they will be prejudiced by the amendments. As to Defendants’ arguments regarding the merits of the amendments, the Court will not ordinarily consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the proposed pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v.

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 54

American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390,407 [“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 amend is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may file and serve a second amended complaint (“SAC”) by no later than February 6, 2026, Response to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the SAC is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiff is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the SAC to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 54

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.