Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01205, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01205, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01205 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: C

Romero v. mendez, et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01205

HEARING: 1/10/24 @ 10:30 AM

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Barbara Romero (Plaintiff) moves for leave to amend her First Amended Complaint to add Caroline Terrazone as a Defendant.

Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Alexander Mendez, PIH Health, Inc., and PIH Management Corp. for negligence. Plaintiff amended her Complaint on June 7, 2023 to add PIH Health Physicians.

Legal Standard

“A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(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.”

(California Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 3.1324.)

Discussion

The Declaration attached to the Motion fails to state why the amendment is necessary and proper and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. These procedural requirements are especially necessary here, where Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff knew of Caroline Terrazone’s involvement in the case when the lawsuit was filed. (Opp., p. 4.) Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is procedurally defective. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.