Olivia Villalovos vs James Balster et al

Case Number

24CV00259

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 07/18/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling

The motion of plaintiff Olivia Villalovos for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve her second amended complaint in substantially the same form as attached to her motion on or before July 28, 2025.

Background:

Plaintiff Olivia Villalovos filed this action to void a fraudulent transfer of real property pursuant to the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act (UVTA) on January 18, 2024, naming as defendants James Balster (plaintiff’s step-grandfather) and Jodi Lee Balster (James’ daughter) (the UVTA action).

Plaintiff alleged in her original complaint in this case that she was the victim of childhood sexual abuse and other misconduct by James (her step-grandfather) and her grandmother, Cecilia Balster. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 2.) James, who was prosecuted for the abuse, entered into a plea deal in 2023, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. (Id., ¶ 2.)

Meanwhile, plaintiff had filed a separate lawsuit against James and Cecilia in 2022, for childhood sexual assault and related claims (case number 22CV04861) (the sexual abuse case). (Complaint, ¶10.) A default was later entered against James in the sexual abuse case, and he transferred title in the only asset which was available to satisfy any judgment, a home located at 5047 San Vicente Drive, in Santa Barbara (the San Vicente property), to Jodi just five days after the entry of default. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 13.)  A default judgment was later entered against James on January 8, 2024, for the sum of $10,000,524.10. (Id., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in this UVTA case on August 3, 2024, adding as a defendant the law firm (Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP) whom she alleges aided and abetted James and Jodi in transferring title to the San Vicente property.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint to add Cecilia as a defendant, and to include additional assets (both real and personal property) which she alleges “were either disposed of, or concealed from, or both, from” her, as well as to add Cecilia as “one additional co-conspirator in this action” who assisted James and Jodi in their fraudulent scheme to hide assets from being used to satisfy any judgment in plaintiff’s favor. (Motion, p. 6.) Plaintiff asserts that these amendments are warranted in light of the new information she recently obtained during the course of discovery in this case. (Id. at pp. 5-7.)

No opposition has been filed to plaintiff’s motion.

There is currently no scheduled trial date.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides:

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

A trial court has “ ‘wide discretion’ ” in allowing the amendment of any pleading, and as a matter of policy the ruling of the trial court in such matters will be upheld unless a “ ‘manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown.’ ” (Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, 747.)

Statutes like section 473 are “construed liberally so that cases might be tried upon their merits in one trial where no prejudice to the opposing party . . . demonstrated.” (Rainer v. Community Memorial Hospital (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 254.) Further, this liberal policy applies to amendments “ ‘at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,’ ” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Given the strong policy which favors the liberal amendment of pleadings, coupled with the lack of any opposition to plaintiff’s instant motion, the Court grants plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court notes that the proposed second amended complaint does not sufficiently redact the numbers for all identified bank accounts. The second amended complaint to be filed must adequately redact such numbers.