Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV02291, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02291    Hearing Date: August 15, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Ronald Dean Strickland (Plaintiff) sued Defendants The Heroes Project and Chrome Hearts, LLC (“Chrome Hearts”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based on an incident in which Plaintiff was purportedly assaulted and battered by an assailant who was sent to attack Plaintiff by a Chrome Hearts’ employee. On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint alleging the causes of action for assault and battery against the Defendants.

Defendant Chrome Hearts demurs to the first amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to amend to file a second amended complaint.

The Court shall first address Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend before turning to Defendant Chrome Hearts’ demurrer.

ANALYSIS

1. Motion for Leave to Amend

Amendments to Pleadings:  General Provisions     

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “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.”

            To wit, without notice to the other party the Court has wide discretion to allow either party (i) to add or strike the name of a party or (ii) to correct a mistake in the name of a party or a mistake in any other respect “in furtherance of justice” and “on any terms as may be proper.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); see also Marriage of Liss (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1429.)  Alternatively, after notice to the other party, the Court has wide discretion to allow either party to amend pleadings “upon any terms as may be just.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 576 states “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” 

            Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is liberally granted.  (Berman vs. Bromberg (1986) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489 [this has been an established policy in California since 1901] (citing Frost v. Whitter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Thomas v. Bruza (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 150, 155).)  The Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Superior Court held “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, citations omitted.)  Moreover, “it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].) 

          “Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice.’  That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901.”  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (Vickers) (1981), 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).)  However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 (citations omitted).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324:  Procedural Requirements

            Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

“(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

            In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:

“(1) the effect of the amendment;

  (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Here, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting leave to file a second amended complaint.  However, Plaintiff has failed to abide by the procedural requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Notably, the motion lacks a separate declaration explaining the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when Plaintiff discovered facts giving rise to amend the pleadings, and why the amendment was not made earlier. (CRC, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).) Also, based on the proposed amendment submitted within the motion, it is clear that it has not been serially numbered, and it is unclear what allegations have been deleted or added. (Id. at subd. (a).)

Therefore, because Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is procedurally defective, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

2. Demurrer

Next, Defendant Chrome Hearts demurs to the first and second causes of action for assault and battery on the grounds that these claims have been insufficiently pleaded in the first amended complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (e). It is also alleged that the first amended complaint is uncertain and unintelligible pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (f). (Notice of Demurrer at pg. 1.)

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Here, Defendant Chrome Hearts first argues that first amended complaint does not allege a cognizable theory to support claims of assault and battery against it. (Demurrer at pg. 8, 10.) In this regard, Defendant Chrome Hearts points to the allegation that the alleged attack was perpetrated by Tim Medvetz, who is referred to as the “owner of The Heroes Project.” (FAC at pg. 4:1-3, 9-15.) It is further argued that there are no allegations to support the assertion that Mr. Medvetz is an employee of Chrome Hearts. Rather, Defendant Chrome Hearts asserts that the first amended complaint relies on speculation to support any connection between the business and the individual. (Demurrer at pp. 5-6, 9.)

Upon review of the first amended complaint, the Court finds that the current pleadings appear to attempt to allege an aiding and abetting theory of liability against Defendant Chrome Hearts, in that Plaintiff appears to allege that Mr. Medvetz was encouraged by Chrome Hearts’ employees to act to stop Plaintiff from playing his music. (FAC at pp. 5:15-16, 6:25-27.) However, the Court agrees with Chrome Hears that the first amended complaint is subject to demurrer because it is uncertain.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) The complaint alleges one cause of action for assault and one for battery against The Heroes Project and Chrome Hearts, LLC (and not Tim Medvetz), with a long, winding narrative without differentiating his legal theories between the defendants. The Court agrees with Chrome Hearts that Defendant has no way to discern what facts or causes of action are being alleged against it.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend without prejudice.

Additionally, the Court sustains Defendant Chrome Hearts’ demurrer on the basis that the first amended complaint is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (f). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must file a procedurally proper noticed motion.    

Defendant Chrome Hearts is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.