Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV35463, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35463    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 61

I.                   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Code Civ. Proc. section 473 subd. (a)(1) states that:

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.

“The trial court has discretion to permit or deny the amendment of the complaint, but instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.)

“Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [Citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .’ [Citation.] A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324, “[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.”

Such a motion must include a supporting declaration stating, “(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.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff Jacob Martinez (Plaintiff) seeks leave to add additional allegations to his complaint. These allegations include facts supporting the allegation that Defendant MVConnect is an unlicensed repossession agency under California law, adds additional statutory violations, adds further detail to Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations, and adds two new causes of action for declaratory relief and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). (Motion at pp. 1–2.) Plaintiff argues there has been no delay in bringing this motion, as Defendants have not yet served discovery, and no trial date has yet been set in this matter. (Motion at pp. 3–4.)

The present motion is unopposed. However, Plaintiff has not inclued a proof of service with the motion. (See CRC Rule 3.1300, subd. (c) [“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”].) The motion therefore cannot be granted until proof of timely service of the motion is offered.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.