Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV09897, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09897    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

When a party moves to amend a pleading, “courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. [Citations.]” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) In ruling on this type of motion, prejudice to another party is the main concern. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) The type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. (Ibid.) Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(1).)¿ A motion to amend a pleading must also be supported by a declaration which specifies the following: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)¿ 

On May 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present case against several defendants, including Single Source Security, LLC, 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, and Jovent Security Services, Inc. On August 25, 2023, Single Source Security filed its cross-complaint against Jovent Security. Due to 99 Cents Only Stores’ bankruptcy, the case was stayed as of April 12, 2024. On November 27, 2024, the Court lifted the stay as to all defendants except 99 Cents Only Stores. Defendant Single Source Security, LLC now moves for leave to amend its cross-complaint against Jovent Security Services, Inc.

Although courts generally permit amendment and a copy of the proposed amended cross-complaint is attached, counsel's declaration fails to address the four mandatory elements required under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b). Specifically, the declaration does not identify: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered; or (4) why the amendment was not sought earlier. The motion itself fails to adequately address the last two factors.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.