Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC06320, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC06320    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: 26

Hilliard v. Coldwell Bank Realty, et al.

LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Miesha Hilliard’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Miesha Hilliard (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants B&A Group, LLC, Denise Caceres, Coldwell Banker Realty, and Skyler Hynes on September 27, 2022. On December 13, 2021, Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint. The latter two Defendants were dismissed from the action by Plaintiff on October 12 and 13, 2024. Plaintiff then added Defendant Azusa Exchange Group, Inc. via doe amendment on April 6, 2023.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint on June 27, 2024. Defendants filed an opposition on September 3, 2024 and Plaintiff replied on September 6, 2024.

Discussion

The Complaint alleges causes of action for unlawful retention of security deposit, breach of lease agreement, negligence, and conversion against Defendants. Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add a fifth cause of action against Defendants for violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivisions (a) and (c), and to reclassify this action as one for damages in excess of $35,000.00. (Notice of Motion, p. 2:15-25.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must 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 of 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).)

Plaintiff’s Motion is not supported by an adequate declaration explaining what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. Instead, the supporting declaration states in conclusory fashion: “Through my investigation and discovery efforts in this case, I have learned facts showing the defendants engaged in misconduct in relation to these funds. Specifically, the defendants’ actions demonstrate a fraudulent intent to steal and wrongfully retain the plaintiffs' money.” (Motion, Verdun Decl., ¶4.) No information is provided regarding what investigation and discovery was conducted, nor when. No information is provided regarding what facts were learned, nor what evidence supports these facts. The reply declaration also does not meet the statutory requirements and speaks only about discovery propounded by Defendants. (Reply, Verdun Decl., ¶¶2-4.) Plaintiff’s counsel was also apparently unaware that a trial date has been set in this action for less than two months away. (Id. at ¶8.) Shockingly, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that “This case remains in the early stages of litigation, with no trial date set and the discovery still ongoing.” (Ibid.) In fact, trial is set for November 6, 2024 and the discovery cutoff date is less than one month away. The requirements for leave to amend, therefore, are not satisfied.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Miesha Hilliard’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.