Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV21335, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV21335    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Carleen Ceilia Dean (Plaintiff) moves the Court for an order granting leave to file a supplemental complaint (Supp. Complaint).  Plaintiff asserts the facts alleged in the proposed Supp. Complaint are material to the case and occurred after the filing of the original Complaint on June 19, 2019.  Defendant Franklin Austin Dunkley (Defendant) has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 464, subdivision (a) provides: “[t]he plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 464, subd. (a).)  A supplemental pleading is a mechanism used in order to assert facts which occur after the filing of the original complaint or cross-complaint.  (Ibid.)  A supplemental complaint does not supersede the original complaint, but merely adds new allegations in conjunction with the original complaint.  (Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders, Ltd.¿(1991) 23 Cal.App.4th¿414, 426.)  Thus, a supplemental pleading cannot allege facts to constitute an entirely new cause of action.  (Flood v. Simpson¿(1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647.)  Denial of¿a¿motion¿may be¿proper on the basis that the supplemental pleading attempted to introduce new causes of action.¿ (Ibid.)¿ Leave to amend to file a supplemental complaint is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed absent manifest abuse of that discretion.¿(Ibid.) 

            The form and content of a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint should generally follow the procedure for filing an amended complaint and thus include a declaration in support.  (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 6:812 [“The same notice motion procedure is followed, as when seeking leave to file amended pleadings”]; Cal. Civ. Ctrm. Hbook. & Desktop Ref. § 9:71 (2022 ed.).) 

            Accordingly, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b), a motion to file a supplemental complaint  must be accompanied by a declaration that specifies 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.

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to specify when the facts giving rise to the supplemental allegations were discovered and the reasons why the motion to file a supplemental complaint was not made earlier.  The declaration submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel in support of the motion merely indicates that “new information continued to arise which was related to the initial causes of action plead in the initial complaint.”  (Declaration of Christopher G. Hook, ¶ 4.)  The Court finds this vague statement is insufficient to meet the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1324. 

Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice as procedurally defective.   Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.