Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 20STCV11378 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV11378, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11378 Hearing Date: August 18, 2022 Dept: 74

20STCV11378 CHARGERS FOOTBALL COMPANY vs ROKIT WIRELESS, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Background

On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff Chargers Football Company, LLC filed this action against Defendant Rokit Wireless, Inc. asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint alleged Defendant breached the terms of the parties Sponsorship Agreement.

On July 29, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings due to the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

On January 25, 2022, the Court an entered order staying the entire action as of July 29, 2021.

On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed three fictitious name amendments to the complaint adding Defendants Jonathan Kendrick, Clinton Ehrlich, and ROKiT Phone Company, LLC as Does 1-3.

On June 21, 2022, the Court issued an order providing “Status conference re bankruptcy is held. Counsel represents to the court that the bankruptcy case has been concluded” and set a Trial Setting Conference for August 16, 2022.

Motion

On January 12, 2022, while the action was stayed, Plaintiff filed its motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint adds causes of action for fraud and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Opposition

In opposition, Defendant Rokit Wireless, Inc. contends the motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, was filed in violation of the Court’s stay order and the bankruptcy stay, and the amendments are based upon a mistaken belief that RWI is not a separate entity.

Reply

Plaintiff did not file a timely reply. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).)

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Standard

In California, leave to amend is to be granted liberally, to accomplish substantial justice for both parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a); Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-89.) “[I]t is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530. See also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 (“The trial court has discretion to permit or deny the amendment of the complaint, but instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.”); Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047 (“discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”).)

Additionally, a party seeking to file an amended pleading must also comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 which requires that the motion:

(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. R. Ct., rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, the accompanying declaration of counsel 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;

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

(Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff’s Motion is Procedurally Defective

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. (Opp. at 5:18-6:6.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff merely attached a copy of the proposed first amended complaint without any basis for the Court or Defendants to determine what additions and deletions were made. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not state the “effect of the amendment,” “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered,” or “why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 31324(b).

The motion is therefore procedurally defective. The Court also notes that the motion was impermissibly filed during the bankruptcy stay.

The motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant also argues the amended complaint is premised upon the “mistaken claim that RWI is not an actual entity.” (Opp. at 4:22-23.) However, this is an evidentiary and merits-based argument that is not a proper basis to deny leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047 (“the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings”); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 (“we believe that the better course of action would have been to allow Atkinson to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”); Ruiz v. Santa Barbara Gas & Elec. Co. (1912) 164 Cal. 188, 196 (“The usual and orderly way to test the sufficiency of an amended complaint is, in the first instance, by demurrer, after the same has been filed, when the questions presented in regard thereto may be considered and determined, and leave given to the pleader to amend if the pleading be held insufficient and the court deem it proper that the party should have such leave.”).)