Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV27975, Date: 2025-05-28 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.

Plaintiffs Jyla Elsa Corral’s, Jonaven Hess Corral’s, Jazlyn Leilani Corral’s, Jayven Cali Corral’s, and Jocelyn Gianna Corral’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied.

On April 11, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) with this Court within 7 days of the Court’s ruling. (4/11/25 Minute Order.) No such FAC appears filed on the instant docket. Plaintiffs offer no explanation for this oversight.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on April 17, 2025. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

“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 3.1324(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.”

Plaintiffs’ motion substantially complies with CRC Rule 3.1324(a). The motion includes a copy of the proposed SAC. (Decl. of Torres ¶3, Exh. A.) Plaintiffs’ motion sets forth the allegations proposed to be added and deleted, and where, by paragraph, although they do not establish where revisions were made by page and line number. (See Motion, pgs. 5-6.)

Plaintiffs’ motion does not substantially comply with CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Defendants’ counsel’s declaration does not specify the effect of the amendments and explain why the amendments are necessary and proper. (See Decl. of Torres.) Plaintiffs’ counsel fails to state when the facts giving rise to substantive amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Further, The Court notes no DOE Amendment has been filed naming Martinez-Labrie, Gutierrez, or Gutierrez Inc. (See C.C.P. §474 [“When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint, or the affidavit if the action is commenced by affidavit, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly . . ..”], emphasis added.) Plaintiffs provide no explanation for this oversight.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their Complaint is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court