Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01182035, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Leave to Amend

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc., a New York corporation moves this Court for an order granting Plaintiff leave to file an amendment to the complaint filed in this action on February 1, 2021 to restore Plaintiff’s claim and prayer for punitive damages in the Complaint.

Motion is denied without prejudice.

Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is shown. This may happen where a proposed amendments opens up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation as to why the major change in point of attack had not been made long before trial. (Estate of Murphy v. Gulf Ins. Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311.)

CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1324(b)

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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 must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to distinguish it from the prior pleading (e.g., “Second Amended Cross-complaint”). [CRC 3.1324(a)(1)]

Except for amendments to change the name of a fictitiously-named defendant, courts generally require amended pleadings rather than amendments to pleadings. (CRC 3.1324(c).)

MP argues that it simply seeking to add back in the punitive damages allegations into the Complaint which it had dismissed when Defendants were in default. However, the defaults were set aside on         9-28-2021 and this motion was not filed until 5-11-2022,  some 8 months later. No explanation is provided for the delay.

The addition of punitive damages to the Complaint may result in prejudice to Defendants, as on             5-10-2022 this Court granted Daniel E. Park Law Corp’s motion to be relieved as counsel of record as to Defendant 1241 Mesa LLC---leaving it without representation. Furthermore, Daniel E. Park Law Corp. filed a motion to be relieved as counsel of record as to Defendant Danna Kang, which is set to be heard on 9-20-2022, which will likely leave Defendant Kang without representation, or representing herself.  Therefore, this motion seeks to add in punitive damages at a time when Defendants do not have the benefit of counsel to defend against them.

Although MP generally suggests it is simply seeking leave to amend to add back in the punitive damages allegations that it had previously deleted, counsel for MP fails to otherwise comply with CRC 3.1324(b). Most notable is any explanation as to why this motion was not made earlier considering Plaintiff had knowledge of the facts supporting punitive damages and default had been vacated in September 2021.

Finally, instead of submitting a proposed First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff submits an “amendment to.” (See the proposed Amendment to Complaint attached to the Gibbs Declaration as Exhibit A.)  As suggested above, except for amendments to change the name of a fictitiously-named defendant, courts generally require amended pleadings rather than amendments to pleadings.  (CRC 3.1324(c).)

Court to give notice.