Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 18STLC12326 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 18STLC12326, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 18STLC12326 Hearing Date: April 18, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lamaas El

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on Plaintiff Lamaas El’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to MAY 18, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein at least 16 court days before the scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NONE

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NONE

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NONE

OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 13, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 13, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff Lamaas El (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Custody Assistant Soto (“Defendant”) for general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on April 16, 2017, Defendant was a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department employee working at the Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles County and that Defendant’s negligent operation of cell doors caused Plaintiff personal injury. (Comp., p. 4.)

On October 20, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Request for Court Order for Discovery – Sheriffs’ Department to Reveal the First Name of Custody Assistant Soto or Serve the Defendant Summons. (10-20-20 Minute Order.) The Court noted that Plaintiff had failed “to demonstrate that Defendant’s full name is a public record being improperly withheld from the public or discuss the reasons why revealing Defendant’s name is not a threat to Defendant’s safety and security as determined by the Sheriff’s Department.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not provide any authority permitting the Court to require the Sheriff’s Department to serve Defendant with Summons and Complaint in the instant case. (Ibid.)

On December 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion re: Appointment of Counsel. (12-10-20 Minute Order.) On February 9, 2021, the Court informed Plaintiff that despite granting his Motion, the Court is unable to appoint counsel. (2-9-21 Minute Order.)

On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding Sheriff Jim McDonell (“McDonell”) as a Defendant.

On October 1, 2021, the Court dismissed Defendant Soto without prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.210, as Plaintiff had not served Defendant with the First Amended Complaint despite several continuances. (10-1-21 Minute Order; 10-1-21 Order.) The Court continued the OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service as to Defendant Sheriff McDonell. (10-1-21 Minute Order.)

On April 21 and October 31, 2022, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s filing of a Second Amended Complaint without the Court’s permission. (4-21-22 Notice of Rejection; 10-31-22 Notice of Rejection.)

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”). The Court continued the OSC Re: Failure to Proof of Service of First Amended Complaint to April 18, 2023. (3-9-23 Minute Order.)

II. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a) and § 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.]” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422.) Notwithstanding the “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 ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . .’ [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a), (b).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint. It appears that Plaintiff intends to substitute Defendant Sheriff Jim McDonell with Sheriff Robert Luna, the current Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Mot. pp. 2-3, 5.)

However, the Court finds that the Motion contains several deficiencies and does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Plaintiff has not filed a declaration explicitly stating what changes he seeks to make through the Second Amended Complaint and the reasons for these changes. Plaintiff has also not specified the “effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) The Court cannot discern whether Plaintiff solely intends to substitute Sheriff Robert Luna as the current Los Angeles County Sheriff or seeks to make other additional amendments.

Moreover, the Second Amended Complaint lists Custody Assistant Soto as a Defendant. (Mot. p. 5.) The Court notes that Soto was dismissed from the case without prejudice on October 1, 2021, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.210. (10-1-21 Order.)

For these reasons, the Court continues the hearing on the Motion. Plaintiff is ordered to file a declaration in compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, explicitly explaining what changes he intends to make through the Second Amended Complaint, why these amendments are necessary, and why they were not made earlier. The declaration must also explain the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments, when Plaintiff discovered the need to make the amendments, and any reasons for delay.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The California Men's Colony State Prison is hereby ordered to facilitate Lamaas El's access to telephonically make all scheduled appearances on his case. For hearings only, Plaintiff may contact the court at the time of his scheduled hearing by dialing (213) 310-7195.

A copy of this minute order is sent to The California Men's Colony State Prison this date.

Clerk hereby gives notice to plaintiff. Certificate of Mailing is attached.