Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV25154, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.



Case Number: 23STCV25154    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

 

 

HEARING DATE:     April 9, 2025                                                  TRIAL DATE:  Not set

                                                          

CASE:                         Jada Randolph v. Amnisflux, LLC

 

CASE NO.:                 23STCV25154

 

 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jada Randolph

 

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

 

 

I.          BACKGROUND

            On October 16, 2023, plaintiff Jada Randolph (“Plaintiff”) commenced this FEHA action against defendant Amnisflux, LLC (“Defendant”).  On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which contains sixteen causes of action.  Defendant has not appeared in this action.

On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff attempted to file the Second Amended Complaint (SAC).  The SAC removes a cause of action and specifies the amount of damages sought for the remaining causes of action so that Plaintiff can obtain an entry of default.[1]  The pleading was rejected on November 4, 2024 because Plaintiff had not obtained leave from the court.

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file the SAC.

            The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)¿ “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.”¿ (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)¿ “Although 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 . . . 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, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324(a).)¿ The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿ (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

In ruling on a motion for leave to amend a pleading, the court does not consider the merits of the proposed amendment, because “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.”¿ (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)¿ While the court may deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment is insufficient to state a valid cause of action or defense, such denial is most appropriate where the insufficiency cannot be cured by further amendment—i.e., where the statute of limitations has expired or the insufficiency is established by controlling caselaw. (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)¿¿¿

III.       DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed SAC which removes a cause of action and specifies the damages sought for each cause of action.  The motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.  Given that Defendant has not¿appeared in this action, the court finds no prejudice will result from granting leave to file the SAC.

 

IV.       CONCLUSION

             

            Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.  The SAC is deemed filed as October 29, 2024.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant.

 

Dated:   April 9, 2025                        

 

   

 

  Kerry Bensinger  

  Judge of the Superior Court 

 



[1] This is not a breach of contract case.  If Plaintiff seeks to obtain a default and default judgment against Defendant, Plaintiff must serve a statement of damages on Defendant prior to the entry of default.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11.)