DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 20, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
No. 23CV02651
KNOWLTON v. RESETAR
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT
The motion is denied.
Plaintiff Bill Knowlton dba Knowlton Construction sued defendant Leslie Resetar for breach of contract related to a remodeling and repair project at defendant’s residence. Defendant filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff on December 11, 2023, and a first amended crosscomplaint on December 19, 2023. Both cross-complaints named Bill Knowlton and his company and sought recovery of compensation paid to an unlicensed contractor, negligence, and breach of contract.
Mr. Knowlton passed away on June 10, 2025, and on December 18, 2025, his daughter, Lee-Anne K. Moreno, was appointed his successor in interest.
Defendant now, over two years after her initial cross-complaint, seeks to add Ms. Moreno’s husband Paul Avila Moreno Jr. as a cross-defendant, as well as a cause of action under the Rosenthal Act (Civil Code sections 1788 et seq.) related to plaintiffs’ alleged unlicensed consumer debt collection practices. This case’s trial date has been continued twice thus far, and trial is currently set for August 3, 2026.
Leave of court is required to amend any pleading except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure sections 472 and 474. A judge may, in furtherance of justice and on proper terms, allow the amendment of any pleading at any time, even after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576; Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 488 [leave to amend any pleading is entrusted to judge’s sound discretion].) Judges should generally be liberal in permitting amendments to pleadings. (Ibid.)
Judges must consider factors of party conduct, potential prejudice to parties, timeliness of amendment, or unwarranted delay in determining if an amendment is permitted. (See Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377
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 court finds that defendant’s declaration in support of the amendment fails to adequately describe the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).) Defendant’s supporting declaration describes that counsel realized in early April 2026 that plaintiffs were required to be licensed to collect consumer debts.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 20, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
(Michel Declaration ¶¶ 5-6.) However, based on the proposed amended cross-complaint, defendant was aware of plaintiffs’ debt collection efforts four years ago (as early as April 7, 2022), when Bill Knowlton attempted to collect $64,828.00 from defendant related to her remodel project. Mr. Moreno is being added as a cross-defendant for his role as an alleged unlicensed consumer debt collector based on his Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens) served on defendant over six months ago. (Proposed Second Amended Cross-Complaint, Exhibit 3.)
Instead of recently discovered evidence, this appears to be recently evaluated evidence. In light of the August 3, 2026 trial date, the two prior vacated trial dates, the age of this case, and the prejudice to plaintiffs in late discovery and added trial preparation costs related to a new cause of action and party, the court finds defendant’s delay unreasonable and denies the motion.
No. 25CV02857
SOTO v. SR AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS
The motion is denied.
Plaintiff purchased a 2021 GMC Sierra from Watsonville Cadillac GMC, manufactured and distributed by defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”). Plaintiff alleges defects and nonconformities associated with the vehicle which manifested immediately upon purchase including engine and electrical defects. (FAC ¶ 24.) Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action: violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code § 1750 et seq.), fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, unfair competition, and violation of Vehicle Code section 11711.
Plaintiff seeks an order imposing Code of Civil Procedure section 871.261 subdivision (j)(4) evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiff asserts that a mandatory mediation of the case occurred on April 1, 2026, and that defendants failed to provide a representative in attendance with settlement authority as required by section 871.26, subdivision (d). The motion is accompanied by a declaration from plaintiff’s counsel who states that defense counsel “needed to contact someone to get authority to respond to the offer – because there was nobody with authority present at the mediation.” (Decl. of Klitzke at ¶ 5.)
1 Unless otherwise specified, numerical code references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.