Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STLC04282, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC04282, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04282 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Monday, April 08, 2024

Case Name: TIMOTHY WATTS v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC

Case No.: 23STLC04282

Motion: Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiff Timothy Watts

Responding Party: None

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Timothy Watts’s Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 9, 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, of 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 25, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 29, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

BACKGROUND

On July 07, 2023, Plaintiff Timothy Watts (“Plaintiff”) brought two causes of actions against Defendant Transworld System Inc. (“Defendant”), under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

On August 18, 2023, Defendant filed its answer.

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff prays for the Court to issue an order allowing him to file his proposed First Amended Complaint(“FAC”) attached to the declaration of his counsel. Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of the amendment is to include recent factual developments significant to Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff specifically seeks to add American Express Corporation as a defendant given that despite Plaintiff’s clear revocation of consent for direct contact and the provision of attorney contact information for all communications related to the alleged debt, American Express Corporation directly contacted Plaintiff on May 1, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the amendment is critical to ensuring that American Express Corporation’s role as the original creditor is accurately represented and so that Plaintiff can seek redress for all grievances related to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations in a single, comprehensive lawsuit.

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 include recent factual developments significant to Plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint with a supporting declaration stating the reason why Plaintiff seeks leave to amend. (Judith K. Robenzadeh Decl. ¶2; Ex. A p. 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that she reached out to Defense counsel in an effort to resolve this matter amicably and efficiently. (Id. ¶ 2.) Despite counsel’s attempt to communicate and negotiate a stipulation for amending the complaint, Defense counsel did not respond, nor did they indicate any willingness to agree to the proposed stipulation to amend the complaint. (Id. ¶ 3.) Counsel declares that given the lack of response or indication from the Defendant’s counsel that they would agree to the proposed stipulation, it became necessary for plaintiff to file the instant motion to ensure all relevant parties are accurately represented and held accountable. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff additionally argues in his moving papers that the amended complaint will ensure that the case reflects the full scope of the actionable conduct and all parties responsible. (Mot. p. 4:6-7.)

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently satisfied the requirements under CRC rule 3.1324. Here, while 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, Plaintiff does not provide the Court with specifications, by reference to pages and lines, of the allegations that would be deleted and added to the proposed First Amended Complaint. This specification 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 Timothy Watts’s Motion for Leave to file First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO MAY 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 of the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice