Leon Lunt et al vs Novacoast Inc et al

Case Number

24CV04434

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/31/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer and Motion to Strike; Motion: Leave

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons below, the court exercises its discretion and grants plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC, leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file its second amended complaint by November 14, 2025. Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike are ordered off calendar.

Background:

Plaintiffs Leon Lunt, Joyce Lunt, and Sealunt US, LLC, filed the initial complaint in this matter on August 9, 2024, alleging claims for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and elder abuse. Defendants filed a demurrer to the initial complaint on December 20, 2024, which was sustained by the court with leave to amend on May 23, 2025.

The court’s May 23, 2025, minute order stated in relevant part: “For all reasons discussed above, the court will sustain the demurrer, with leave to amend. (Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 406, 411-412[.]) The court expects that any amended pleading will specifically state the plaintiff or plaintiffs who assert each separately stated cause of action. The court further expects that any amended pleading will state facts sufficient to show that each plaintiff asserting each separately stated cause of action is the real party in interest with standing to prosecute that cause of action. (Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1345 [standing to sue must be resolved before a matter can be reached on its merits].)” (Minute Order, filed May 23, 2025.)

Plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC, filed a first amended complaint on June 6, 2025, alleging four causes of action for breach of contract and additional causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. (Plaintiffs Leon Lunt and Joyce Lunt did not file a first amended complaint.) The claims at issue pertain to various alleged lease agreements and related communications between the parties through their respective agents.

Defendants subsequently filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint and moved to strike portions of the first amended complaint. Plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC, filed a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint and attached to that motion the proposed amendments. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is opposed by Defendants. Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike are opposed by Plaintiff.

Analysis:

(1) Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC

Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the court. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Ibid.) It is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158.) “Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law[] no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180.) However, leave to amend should generally not be granted where, in all probability, amendment would be futile. (Foroudi v. The Aerospace Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 992, 1000-1001.)

Plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC, argues that it should be permitted to assert in a second amended complaint two alternative theories of recovery based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff argues that the alternative theories relate to the underlying lease agreements already at issue in the case and “are based on the same set of facts and circumstances as the original causes of action.” (Plaintiff’s Motion, p. 5.) Plaintiff argues that the “two causes of action are intended to supplement the related claims, offering alternative theories for recovery.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff further argues there is no prejudice to defendants under these circumstances and notes there is no pending trial date. (Ibid.)

Defendants argue that the two alternative theories of recovery proposed by plaintiff exceed the scope of the court’s May 23, 2025, minute order granting plaintiff leave to amend. (Defendants’ Opposition, pp. 5-6.) Defendants concede that “motions to amend are granted liberally” but argue that the proposed amendments are “deficient as a matter of law” and “could not be cured by further appropriate amendment.” (Id. at p. 9.) Defendants argue that the proposed fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is futile because it is superfluous of the breach of contract claims and the proposed seventh cause of action for negligent misrepresentation is futile because plaintiff cannot allege reasonable reliance and damages. (Id. at pp. 9-14.)

The court evaluated the parties’ respective arguments considering the applicable legal standards. The court finds that its May 23, 2025, minute order granting plaintiff leave to amend its pleading does not preclude plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC, from seeking further leave to file a second amended complaint. The court finds that leave to amend is appropriate under the liberal pleading standards at this stage of the litigation. There is a strong policy in favor of a hearing on the merits. (Vaillette v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 680, 685.) Where there is a reasonable possibility an amendment will cure a defective pleading, it is ordinarily an abuse of discretion to deny a party the chance to cure the defect. (Ibid.) “[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

The court does not address the merits of defendants’ arguments as to the sufficiency of the allegations. “[T]he better course of action [is] to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 260.) Therefore, the court exercises its discretion and grants plaintiff Sealunt US, LLC, leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file and serve its second amended complaint by November 14, 2025.

(2) Demurrer to First Amended Complaint by Defendants; (3) Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint by Defendants

Because the court granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, the court finds that defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike pertaining to the first amended complaint are moot. The court therefore orders these matters off calendar.