Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 22STCV22993 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV22993, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22993 Hearing Date: December 20, 2022 Dept: 30

Kwasha vs. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, et. al., Case No. 22STCV22993

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff Linda Kwasha (Plaintiff) requests leave to file the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The motion is denied.

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

California courts are required to permit liberal amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice between the parties to an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 352.) “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.” (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)

Under 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 pleading, 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.

Subdivision (b) of rule 3.1324 requires the motion be accompanied by a separate, supporting declaration, specifying:

(1) the amendment’s effect;

(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.

On October 17, 2022, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s initial Complaint in full. The Complaint alleged four causes of action, for Defamation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, and Conversion. The Court sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action for Defamation with thirty days leave to amend, and sustained the demurrer to the remaining causes of action without leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 16, 2022, asserting two causes of action for Defamation and Negligence. The Court rejected the pleading for exceeding the scope of the leave granted. Plaintiff then filed another FAC on November 21, 2022, asserting only the cause of action for Defamation. The proposed SAC at issue here adds a cause of action for Negligence against Defendant. (McCullough Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.)

To warrant leave to amend, Plaintiff must specify “when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered” and “the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff represents that the new facts were discovered during the November 14, 2022 deposition of Melissa Brown, Defendant’s employee; specifically, Plaintiff learned that her property had been placed by Washington Mutual Bank (later acquired by Defendant Chase) in the safe deposit box number 100510 rather than safe number 510, the box rented to Plaintiff. (McCullough Decl. ¶ 3.) The bank’s mistake was not discovered until Brown and Eric Siegal, another Chase employee, drilled open safe deposit box 100510 and removed Plaintiff’s property from it. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s claim for Negligence in the proposed SAC is based on allegations that Defendant negligently failed to accurately record the renting of Plaintiff’s safe deposit box and failed to maintain proper records reflecting which safe deposit box was rented to Plaintiff. (McCullough Decl., Ex. A ¶ 26.)

The proposed cause of action is not based on any facts newly discovered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s initial Complaint had likewise alleged that the bank negligently failed to record which safe deposit box held Plaintiff’s jewelry. (See, e.g., Comp. ¶ 10 [“The statement by Raigoza [that there was no safe under Plaintiff’s name] was either not true or because of Chase’s negligence the records regarding the Safe Deposit Box were misplaced or ceased to exist”].) The Complaint had also alleged that Brown and Siegal, in May 2022, accessed the safe containing Plaintiff’s jewelry and removed the jewelry. (Comp. ¶ 26.) The only new fact cited by Plaintiff is the specific number of the safe deposit box that contained Plaintiff’s jewelry (100510). (McCullough Decl. ¶ 3.) But the number of the safe deposit box is not the “fact[] giving rise to the amended allegations”; the proposed cause of action for Negligence arises out of the bank’s failure “to accurately record the renting of [Plaintiff’s] safe deposit box . . . to ensure she could access the correct box and retrieve her property” (McCullough Decl., Ex. A ¶ 26), facts which have been known to Plaintiff since the commencement of this action. Furthermore, counsel for Defendant states that Plaintiff was provided with documents on May 23, 2022, showing that her property had been contained in box number 100510, and so even that fact does not appear to be newly discovered. (Shanks-Parkin Decl. ¶ 9.)