Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02481, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02481 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Yongxue Zhang v. Wendy W. Li, et al.
Plaintiff Yongxue Zhang’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court summarily DENIES Plaintiff Yongxue Zhang’s motion for leave to amend complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury action. On August 15, 2023, plaintiff Yongxue Zhang (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Wendy W. Li, Mimi, a California Employment Agency, and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.
On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint. The motion is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)
Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, a motion to amend a pleading shall (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, subd. (a).)
Under Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) of the California Rules of Court, 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)
DISCUSSION
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Plaintiff served the motion by mail and by electronic service, which affects the deadlines for filing and serving the motion. (Proofs of Service (1/7/25).) Per the January 28, 2025 hearing date, the deadline for mail service was December 30, 2024, and the deadline for electronic service was December 31, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Plaintiff served the motion on January 3, 2025, and filed it with the Court on January 7, 2025, and it is therefore untimely. A court lacks jurisdiction to consider an improperly noticed motion. (Diaz v. Pro. Cmty. Mgmt., Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1205-1206.) The Court therefore summarily DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.
Moreover, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s motion, the Court would still deny it because Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1324, subdivisions (a) and (b) of the California Rules of Court. Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the proposed amended complaint or identify the locations of the proposed allegations for deletion or addition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration also does not specify the effect of the proposed amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id., rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)
CONCLUSION
The Court summarily DENIES Plaintiff Yongxue Zhang’s motion for leave to amend complaint without prejudice.