Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC04659, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC04659    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 26

Logan, et al. v. Yee, et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Don Ramey Logan, Jr. and Gregory Logan’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Action Complaint is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Don Ramey Logan, Jr. and Gregory Logan (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendant Betty T. Yee, Controller of the State of California (“Defendant”) on June 22, 2021. Plaintiffs bring this action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1541 to recover unclaimed property from their father’s estate, which is now allegedly in Defendant’s control.

The Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint on December 16, 2021 and Defendant filed its Answer on January 5, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Action Complaint on July 20, 2022.

On September 8, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Discharge from Liability, Deposit of Funds, and Dismissal from Action. Defendant filed its opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend on October 31, 2022.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court takes note of Defendant’s contention that it was never served with the instant Motion. No proof of service accompanies the Motion. However, by filing a substantive opposition to the Motion, Defendant has waived any defect in the notice of the Motion. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, provides that “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) 

The policy favoring amendments and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.]” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)  “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . . [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Where a proposed amendment opens an entirely new substantive area of injury on the eve of trial without any explanation for why the major change had not been made long before, denial of leave is appropriately ordered in the court’s discretion.  (Id.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

The Motion’s supporting declaration fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 3.1324. While the declaration includes an appendix setting forth the changes to be made, no information is provided therein as to when new evidence giving rise to the proposed class action amendment was discovered. (Motion, Iskander Decl., ¶¶1-5 and Exh. 2.) Nor does the declaration specify the effect, necessity or propriety of the proposed class action amendments. (Id. at ¶¶1-5.) The Motion itself simply argues that the new facts were not discovered until Plaintiffs obtained an attorney who recognized that the case had the potential to bring much needed reform to California’s escheatment laws. (Motion, p. 2:8-12.) The Motion also fails to recognize that this case is set for trial on December 20, 2022. Plaintiffs argue that there is no trial date and discovery is still open. (Id. at p. 4:21-23.) The December 20, 2022 trial date, however, is only days away and discovery is closed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Defendant will certainly be prejudiced by an eleventh-hour amendment changing this action from a limited jurisdiction case worth less than $10,000.00 to a class action case requiring significant procedural steps on the eve of trial. Finally, as the opposition points out, it does not appear that Plaintiffs have standing to assert class claims for injunctive relief given that Defendant has paid out their claim. (Opp., Mauroschadt Decl., ¶¶3-4.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Don Ramey Logan, Jr. and Gregory Logan’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Action Complaint is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.