Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanger v. Ahn

United States District Court, N.D. California

September 26, 2019

PRIYA SANGER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AHE AHN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING ORDER, MOTION TO AMEND, AND MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND RE: DKT. NO. 54

          Joseph C. Spero Chief Magistrate Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiffs Priya Sanger and Michael Sanger move for leave to file an amended complaint after the deadline set by a scheduling order. The Sangers’ sole existing claim is under California’s codification of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. The Sangers seek to add allegations on information and belief that Defendant Ahe Ahn (rather than her daughter, non-party Leah Ahn) owns the real property in dispute and add a quiet title claim on based on those allegations, and to remove all allegations and claims against Defendant Lance Ahn, as well as the Sangers’ claim for money damages. Based on the proposed removal of their claim for damages, the Sangers seek to strike the Ahns’ jury demand. The Ahns contend that the Sangers’ proposed amendment is untimely, not brought diligently, prejudicial, and brought in bad faith.

         The Court held a hearing on September 13, 2019. Because the Sangers did not act diligently, the motion for relief from the scheduling order is DENIED. Without such relief, the proposed amendment is untimely, and is also DENIED, although the Sangers may voluntarily dismiss their claim against Lance Ahn and their prayer for damages if they so choose. At this time, however, the request for damages remains in the complaint, and the motion to strike the Ahns’ jury demand is therefore DENIED, without prejudice to the Sangers renewing that motion after the Court resolves the Ahns’ pending motion for summary judgment.[1]

         II. BACKGROUND

         The proposed amendment is based on Ahe Ahn’s testimony at her deposition, which took place on July 10, 2019. The Sangers contend that until this testimony, they lacked a sufficient basis to allege that Ahe Ahn owned the property:

Q: Did Leah Ahn pay any part of the down payment for the Lombard property?
A: No. It’s all my money.
Q: Has she paid any of the mortgage payments with her own money?
A: No.
Q: You made all the mortgage payments for her?
A: Yes.
Q: From 2004 to present?
A: Yes.
Q: So all the money she spent on the Lombard property has ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.