TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Charlene McPherson’s Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff Charlene McPherson to give notice. 

REASONING

The court may grant leave to amend the pleadings at any stage of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) A party may discover the need to amend after all pleadings are completed (the case is “at issue”) and new information requires a change in the nature of the claims or defenses previously pleaded. (See Dye v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1380.)

“The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) Courts apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, or an increased burden of discovery. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488 [trial court’s denial of leave to amend was proper where those factors were present].) If the delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565 [describing same].)

A motion for leave to amend must: 

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) 

Further, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify 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(b).)

Plaintiff Charlene McPherson (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Notably, the motion fails to meet the procedural requirements, as Plaintiff simply provides a proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the motion and a declaration with no information required by rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. Defendants Pacific Capital Funding Corp, Planet Estate Realty LLC, and Alex Goretsky (“Defendants”) take issue with the procedural deficiencies of the motion, and Plaintiff replies with arguments that the motion is code compliant.

In her reply, Plaintiff argues that her motion outlines the new allegations and additional causes of action. Put simply, this is not true. Plaintiff’s motion consists of boilerplate law regarding amendment of a pleading, facts about Defendants’ filing of their answer and failure to stipulate to an amended pleading, and she states there are new causes of action but fails to identify any of the new causes. Plaintiff states in her reply that “[s]hould the Court require precise page and line references for the changes, Plaintiff is prepared to provide them” (Reply, p. 3, ll. 4-5), but it is noteworthy that it is not the Court who requires these references; these references are required by law as set forth in rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. Plaintiff also argues that she has identified the effect of the amendment, necessity of the amendment, discovery of facts, and timing of the amendment in her motion, but again, merely stating so does not make it true.

Plaintiff asks the Court to review the amended pleading and determine on its own the nature of the amendments, but the Court declines to do so, as it is not the Court’s responsibility to piece together the arguments which should have been made in a motion. Given the lack of description about the proposed amendments and Plaintiff’s failure to describe any amendments, the Court cannot determine the effect and necessity of the amendment, and Plaintiff has not identified any facts in this regard. Plaintiff also states in the reply that the facts supporting the amendments were uncovered after the original complaint was filed (Reply, p. 3, ll. 13-14), but she provides no specific information in that regard except to state an “easy example” of a letter from the servicer received on June 11, 2024 (Reply, p. 3, ll. 14-16). The Court notes that the motion was filed on June 4, 2024, such that a June 11, 2024 letter could not properly serve as the basis for the motion.

While Plaintiff has swiftly moved for amendment, the failure to provide any of the information required for a motion for leave to amend the complaint renders it such that amendment is not proper here. Accordingly, Plaintiff Charlene McPherson’s Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file another motion for leave to amend if she chooses; however, Plaintiff is advised to become familiar with the procedural requirements set forth in rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court. Given that the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion on procedural grounds, the Court does not address Defendants’ argument regarding the effect of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Insofar as Defendants object to statements within Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in the body of their motion opposition, those objections are OVERRULED for failure to comply with the format set forth in rule 3.1354 of the California Rules of Court, as objections must be served and filed separately from the opposition itself.