Department 58

Hearing Date: July 1, 2022

Case Name: Samuel Abam v. Archstone Toluca Hills, LLC

Case No.: 22STCV11592

Matter: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Samuel Abam

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice.

Background

On April 6, 2022, Plaintiff in pro per Samuel Abam (Plaintiff or Abam) filed a complaint against Defendant Archstone Toluca Hills LLC (Defendant or Archstone) alleging wrongful eviction, negligence, and extortion.

Plaintiff alleges that he applied for COVID-19 rental assistance in October 2021, but Defendant served him with a three-day notice to pay rent or be evicted in December 2021. In March 2022, Defendant then served Plaintiff with an unlawful detainer notice. The Complaint seeks $250,000,000.00 in damages.

In June 2022, Defendant moved to quash service because the summons was improperly served. The Court granted the motion on July 1, 2022.

Plaintiff now moves to amend the Complaint. He seeks to update Defendant’s name and change the causes of action to negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. No opposition has been filed.

The Court continues the motion to a later date for Plaintiff to comply with the procedural requirements of California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324.

Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend in light of a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same action. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Accordingly, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 [“instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare.”].) Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) The decision on a motion for leave is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶¶ 6:637 et seq.)

A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (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) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).)

Discussion

Plaintiff has not complied with the Rules of Court. There is no copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint attached. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1).)

In addition, Plaintiff does not fully provide the amended allegations. For example, in the “Appendix of Proposed Changes,” under “First Cause of Action,” he indicates that negligent misrepresentation will replace wrongful eviction. However, for the supporting paragraphs, he merely indicates “Because of this change, a new and different paragraph follows.” Similar language is used for the second and third causes of action that “new and different” paragraphs would follow, but he does not state the contents of these new paragraphs.

There is also no supporting declaration that specifies the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).)

Because of the deficiencies in these procedural requirements, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice.