Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV10195, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10195    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Doe Williams

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

            On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint.  On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). The FAC asserts 52 causes of action arising out of a physical altercation with another inmate at LASD Men’s Central Jail while Plaintiff sat in his wheelchair as he is mobility impaired.

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

CCP §473(a)(1) states: “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.” 

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, the courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial 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 where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to CRC 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, such allegations are located.  CRC 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, 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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Plaintiff has not complied with the procedural requirements of CRC 3.1324. Plaintiff does not identify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations that are to be deleted and added are located as required by subdivision (a). Plaintiff also does not provide an adequate declaration stating what is required by subdivision (b). Lastly, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service on any parties, and none have opposed the motion.

The Motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice.

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 15th day of March 2024