Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿ 

Department 27¿¿ 

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿ 

Hearing Date: 3/25/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿ 

Case No./Name: 21STCV39357 HOWARD REICHMAN vs JEFFERY ALAN SCHECHTER, et al. 

Motion: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Moving Party: Plaintiff 

Responding Party: Defendants Showrunner Industries, Inc. and Jeffery Schechter 

Notice: Insufficient¿¿ 

 

Ruling: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED. 

 

 

Background 

On October 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present case. May 14, 2023 is the discovery cut off date. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed the first motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to include a cause of action for violation of Penal Code Section 496. On January 10, 2024, the Court denied the first motion due to certain procedural defects. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a second motion for leave for a hearing on March 25, 2024. Defendant argues that the motion is again procedurally defective as it is untimely. 
 
Legal Standard 

CCP § 1005(b) provides “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. … However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar … if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days.” 

CCP § 1010.6(a)(3)(B) Provides “Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.”¿ 

Analysis and Conclusion 

It is undisputed that on March 1, 2024, Plaintiff served the present motion to Defendant Jeffery Schechter and Defendant Showrunner Industries, Inc. through electronic transmission. The hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2024, 16 court days after service. Defendants contend that the motion is untimely because service by email extends the notice period by an additional two court days, so the motion needs to be served 18 court days before the hearing.  

Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 87 is on point. In Cole, the appellate court faced the same issue in relation to a summary judgment motion and, since CCP Section 437c does not expressly state any extension of the notice period for electronic service, it looked to CCP Section 1010.6, which addresses service by electronic transmission, to determine if any extension applies to such service. And, in fact, Section 1010.6(a)(3)(B) provides for a two-day notice extension for electronic service. Here, too, Section 1005(b) does not expressly state an extended notice period, so we look to Section 1010.6. Accordingly, Plaintiff needed to serve the motion 18 court days before the hearing. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is untimely and therefore DENIED. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿¿