Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV26319, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26319    Hearing Date: June 25, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Relevant Procedural History

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff Akhenaton Rey Taylor filed an in pro per, one-page Complaint suing “Police Officer Cardiel (43005) / Kang (41473)” pursuant to a claim of Police Misconduct 18 U.S.C. 242 Violation 1983.

On December 20, 26, and 28, 2023, Plaintiff Taylor filed proofs of service reflecting service of the summons and Complaint on Officer Cardiel on those dates.

The record fails to reflect service of the summons and Complaint on Officer “Kang (41473).”

On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff Taylor filed an amendment to complaint form seeking to name “DAR DOES” as “Curren D. Price Jr.”

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff Taylor filed an amendment to complaint form seeking to name “John Doe” as “Curren D. Price Jr.”

On March 1, 2024, the Court issued an order rejecting the amendments because the Complaint does not allege any Doe Defendants.

B. Motion Before the Court

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff Taylor filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint. The contents of Plaintiff’s motion appear to show the proposed language for a First Amended Complaint more so than arguments and authorities in favor of leave to amend.

On May 2, 2024, Officer Cardiel filed a notice of non-opposition in response to Plaintiff Taylor’s motion.

On May 21, 2024, at a hearing on different matters, the Court noted that Plaintiff Taylor’s motion “is not necessary since the defendant did not file an Answer to the complaint and ha[s] agreed to plaintiff filing a First Amended Complaint.”

Plaintiff’ Taylor’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion for Leave to Amend: DENIED.

A. Relevant Law

A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

B. Court’s Determination

Here, as noted by the Court on May 21, 2024, no Answer to the Complaint by Officer Cardiel appears in the record. Officer Kang has not been served. Thus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a), Plaintiff Taylor may amend the Complaint as a matter of right. (5/21/24 Order, p. 1 [Plaintiff Taylor’s motion “is not necessary since the defendant did not file an Answer to the complaint and ha[s] agreed to plaintiff filing a First Amended Complaint”].)

However, the Court cannot grant this motion because no proposed first amended complaint has been attached to the motion, or separately lodged, as required by California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324. The assertions in the motion as to plaintiff’s elaboration on the facts he is complaining about do not take the place of a pleading. This is not a mere technicality – without such a proposed first amended complaint, the Court cannot tell what is being proposed to be filed, and cannot determine the answers to the basic questions of 1) who are the defendants; 2) what causes of action are being asserted against each one; 3) what are the facts that support each cause of action; and 4) what are the damages that are being sought against each defendant under each cause of action.

Therefore, the Court will DENY the motion as pleaded. However, Plaintiff is advised that he may, without needing to file another motion, file a First Amended Complaint, and may use the form PLD-PI-001 or other form complaint, and attach one or more causes of action (PLD-PI-001(2) or (3)). 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Akhenaton Rey Taylor’s Motion for Leave to Amend [Res ID # 6781] is DENIED. Plaintiff may however, file a First Amended Complaint as of right so long as it is done before any Defendant files an Answer or other responsive pleading, like a demurrer. Plaintiff is referred to the LA Law Library for assistance.