Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 18STLC12326 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 18STLC12326, Date: 2023-05-18 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: May 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:

Plaintiff Lamas El’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to remove Defendant Soto from the Second Amended Complaint and to file it within fifteen (15) days of notice of the Court Order.

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 May 16, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 16, 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.)

On April 18, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion and ordered Plaintiff to correct deficiencies noted in its Order. (4-18-23 Minute Order.)

On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Declaration.

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 McDonnell with Sheriff Robert Luna, the current Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Mot. pp. 2-3, 5.)

On April 18, 2023, the Court found that the Motion contained several deficiencies and did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (4-18-23 Minute Order.) Plaintiff had not filed a declaration explicitly stating what changes he sought to make through the Second Amended Complaint and the reasons for these changes. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also did not specify the “effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay.” (Ibid.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) Thus, the Court could not discern whether Plaintiff solely intends to substitute Sheriff Robert Luna as the current Los Angeles County Sheriff or seeks to make other additional amendments. (Ibid.) The Court also noted that the proposed Second Amended Complaint lists Custody Assistant Soto as a Defendant. (Ibid.; Mot. p. 5.) However, Defendant Soto was dismissed from the case without prejudice on October 1, 2021, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 583.210. (4-18-23 Minute Order; 10-1-21 Order.)

For these reasons, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion and ordered Plaintiff to correct these deficiencies. (Ibid.)

On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Declaration. In this Declaration, Plaintiff explains that he filed the instant Motion to add the new Sheriff Robert Luna as a party. (Supp. Decl. ¶ 7.) There was a delay in filing the amended Complaint because once Plaintiff sent the summons and the First Amended Complaint to be served on Sheriff McDonnell, the pleadings were not accepted by the Sheriff’s Department as McDonnell is no longer the Los Angeles County Sheriff. (Ibid. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has a process server who will serve Sheriff Robert Luna. (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has addressed the deficiencies and set forth the amendments he is seeking through the Second Amended Complaint.

For this reason, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to remove Defendant Soto from the Second Amended Complaint and to file it within fifteen (15) days of notice of the Court Order.

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.