Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCP1705, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP1705    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Tohid Naeem  

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.     

BACKGROUND

            On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages. The complaint consists of one page and is handwritten. The complaint alleges a violation of a tenant ordinance; however, the Court cannot ascertain the complete allegations of the complaint as the handwriting is illegible. (Complaint at 1:16-20.)

            On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed what purports to be a motion for leave to amend the complaint (the “Motion”). Plaintiff did not file a proof of service as to the Motion. The Motion is procedurally deficient on several grounds.

            The Motion is deficient as it does not state the location of the hearing on the Motion. The Motion also does not identify the hearing judge. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(b)(1) provides that the first page of each paper must specify immediately below the number of the case the date, time, and location, if ascertainable, of any scheduled hearing and the name of the hearing judge if ascertainable. Here, the Motion does not set forth the department in which the hearing will occur or the name of the hearing judge in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(b).

            Plaintiff also failed to file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the Motion. The Motion consists of a defective notice of motion with two copies of the proposed amended complaint attached thereto. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a) provides that a party filing a motion must serve and file a supporting memorandum and the court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion is not meritorious and cause for its denial.

            California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that a motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a separate declaration specifying: (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. The Motion was not filed with a declaration and therefore Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

            Additionally, the Motion was not filed with a proof of service. Due process requires a party to be fully advised of the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail. (Fenn v. Sherriff (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1482.) Defendant was not served with the Motion. Defendant should have been served with the Motion. Although Plaintiff is a pro per litigant, pro per litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

            Due to the numerous defects concerning the Motion, the Court DENIES the Motion 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 31st day of October 2023