Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV15728, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 11, 2022, against Defendants Hollywood Foreign Press Association (“HFPA”), Greg Goeckner (“Goekner”), and James Lee (“Lee”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on April 22, 2024, against Defendants alleging eleven causes of action: (1) breach of contract [alleged against HFPA]; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing [alleged against HFPA]; (3) tortious interference with contractual relations [alleged against HFPA]; (4) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage [alleged against HFPA]; (5) violation of Business & Professions Code §§1700 et seq. [alleged against HFPA]; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress [alleged against HFPA]; (7) violation of the California Right of Fair Procedure [alleged against HFPA]; (8) constructive/retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy [alleged against HFPA]; (9) harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and/or color in violation of FEHA [alleged against HFPA]; (10) violation of FEHA- failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation [alleged against HFPA]; and (11) retaliation for engaging in protected activity [alleged against HFPA]. (See FAC.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 8, 2024. Defendant HFPA filed its notice of non-opposition on November 5, 2024.

“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.” (C.C.P. §473(a)(1).)

“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 (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.)

CRC Rule 3.1321(a) requires that a motion to amend must: “[i]nclude a copy of the proposed . . . amended pleading . . . [and] state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be [deleted and/or added], if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the [deleted and/or additional] allegations are located.” (CRC Rule 3.1321(a), emphasis added.)

CRC Rule 3.1324(b) provides, as follows: “[a] separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) [t]he effect of the amendment; (2) [w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) [w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) [t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion does not include a copy of the proposed SAC.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his FAC and file a SAC is denied, without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to amend his FAC and file a SAC is denied, without prejudice.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court