Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 22CHCP00338, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCP00338, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCP00338 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 1-30-24

Case # 22CHCP00338

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ararat Yousefi

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Armen Vardanyan

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff Ararat Yousefi (Plaintiff) filed his original complaint. Plaintiff alleged causes of action related to a breach of contract of a partnership agreement for the purchase and renovation of a property. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Armen Vardanyan (Defendant) breached their agreement.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on May 17, 2023. Defendant filed his answer on October 23, 2023. On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add several causes of action to his complaint, including a cause of action for fraud. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that the motion is procedurally defective, Plaintiff has not explained the delay in bringing the motion, and because Defendant will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed.

RULING: Motion denied.

This court is authorized, in its discretion, to “allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) Code of Civil Procedure § 576, likewise, provides that “any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment to any pleading . . .” (CCP § 576.) The determination of whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading rests in the court’s sound discretion.

Leave to amend is to be liberally granted at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1986) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487; see also County of Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Kern County (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1618 (noting that a plaintiff may be granted amendment even at the time of trial).) To overcome the policy of liberally granting amendments at any stage of litigation, a defendant must show both actual prejudice and inexcusable delay. (Magpali, 48 Cal.App.4th at 487.) Prejudice exists where an amendment to a complaint would result in a delay of trial; loss of critical evidence; added costs of preparation; and increased burden of discovery. (Id. at 486-488.)

Motions for leave to amend must also meet certain procedural requirements. For instance, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a) requires that the motion “(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.”

Additionally, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that the declaration in support of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint must state: “(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) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint does not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff’s motion does not state what allegations are proposed to be added or deleted to the previous pleading. Nor does the declaration accompanying Plaintiff’s motion clearly state the effect of the amendment, why the motion is necessary and proper, and when the facts were discovered.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. Plaintiff’s motion also attempts to add punitive damages allegations back to the complaint that were previously stricken by this Court. Finally, Plaintiff’s motion does not explain the delay in bringing the motion.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied.

Moving party to give notice.