Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV41858, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41858    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTIES: (1) Defendants R&R Remodeling, Inc and Rafael Adan Ayala; and (2) Defendants Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Pacific Southwest Region, McCarty Memorial Christian Church, Branden Hendricks, Lorenzo Johnson, and Bruce Indermill (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  The currently operative operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”), filed on May 31, 2022, alleges: (1) trespass, (2) negligence per se; and (3) negligence.[1]

            On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a “first amended pleading” (the “Motion”). 

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 473 permits the trial court in its discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the furtherance of justice.  (CCP § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  CCP section 576 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 of any pleading or pretrial conference order.  (CCP § 576.)  There is a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding.  (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 945.)  An application to amend a pleading is addressed to the trial judge’s sound discretion.  (Id.)  If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.  (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)  Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.  (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.)

Under California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1324, a motion for leave to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that sets forth: (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 sooner.  (CRC, r. 3.1324(b).)

            The Motion does not comply with the requirements of CRC, rule 3.1324.  The Motion appears to consist of a copy of the proposed fourth amended complaint, which is an 87-page document alleging 26 causes of action.  Nor does the Motion comply with the general requirements for motions (in either form or content) articulated by CRC, rule 3.1113.  (See CRC, r. 3.1113(a)-(d).)  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

       Dated this 19th day of January 2024