Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22NWLC19602, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
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. 

Case Number: 22NWLC19602    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Case Name:                             CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC v. GREENFIELD LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE. INC. AKA GREENFIELD TREE SERVICE: and DOES I through 10, Inclusive.

Case No.:                                22NWLC19602

Motion:                                   Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint  

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau’s Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 of the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers providing specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added to the proposed First Amended Complaint. Failure to do so will result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 07, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 13, 2024                    [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed four causes of action against Defendant Greenfield Landscaping and Maintenance, Inc. aka Greenfield Tree Service (“Defendant”) for 1) breach of contract, 2) open book account 3) account stated and 4) reasonable value.

On December 06, 2022, Plaintiff requested default be entered against the Defendant.  The Clerk entered default against Defendant the same day.

On January 04, 2023, the Court entered default judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $25,671.14.

On April 25, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Set aside Default and Default Judgment and to Stay Execution of the Judgment. Defendant filed a joint stipulation on May 09, 2023, indicating that the parties agreed to set aside the default and default judgment and that Defendant would file an answer to the Complaint within ten days of the Court’s order. The Court ordered for the default and default judgment to be set aside on May 30, 2023.

Defendant filed its answer to the Complaint on June 13, 2023.

On July 07, 2023, the Court reassigned the matter to the Hon. Judge Katherine Chilton in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

 On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff prays for the Court to issue an order allowing the filing of the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the declaration of its counsel. Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of the amendment is to add additional damages to the principal amount sought and that Plaintiff makes the motion in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.

OPPOSITION

             No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under the Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 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. . ..” “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 [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, subds. (a), (b).)

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint to revise the amount due to include the actual earned premiums remaining due and owning as determined by an audit of defendant’s operation and payroll records as required under the terms of the policy.

 Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint with a supporting declaration stating the reason why Plaintiff seeks leave to amend. (Michael D. Frischer Decl.; Ex. 3.) Plaintiff provides the declaration of its counsel who states that the matter was brought due to Defendant’s failure to cooperate with State Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”) for the purposes of completing the audit for two workers compensation policy matters 9277782-20 and 9277782-21. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant provided an answer to the complaint on June 13, 2023.  However, Plaintiff served discovery on May 09, 2023, to compel Defendant to comply with the audit by producing the information and documentation needed by SCIF’s auditor to properly calculate the earned premiums for the 2020 and 2021 policies. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant produced the information and payroll records which were forwarded to SCIF. (Id. ¶ 5.) As a result of the audit, SCIF provided Plaintiff’s counsel with the worksheets and revised invoice for the 2020 and 2021policies to show actual earned premiums due and owing for this policy in the sum of $19,055.62 for policy no. 9277782-20 and $20,635.55 for policy no. 9277782-21. (Id. ¶ 6. Exh. 2.) Counsel states that Plaintiff now seeks to amend its complaint to accurately reflect the precise amount of insurance premiums earned by SCIF and still due and owing. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently satisfied the requirements under CRC rule 3.1324. The Motion includes a copy of the proposed amended complaint as well as a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not provide the Court with specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added to the proposed First Amended Complaint, which can be provided in the form of a supporting chart that references the page and line of what is being changed.

Thus, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau’s Motion for Order Allowing Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 of the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers providing specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added to the proposed First Amended Complaint. Failure to do so will result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.