Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00024459-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00024459-CU-WT-CTL LINGENFELTER VS BANK OF ENGLAND [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT BANK OF ENGLAND'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S ACTION is DENIED.

Plaintiff Michael James Lingenfelter ('Plaintiff') is a pro per litigant. 'Pro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.' (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) This Court sustained Defendant BANK OF ENGLAND's ('Defendant') after the Court noted 'the allegations are confusing and fail to indicate under which authorities the claims are brought. Plaintiff's causes of action need to be clearer to enable Defendant to know how to defend itself.' Plaintiff was granted ten (10) days leave to amend. The final order is dated January 19, 2024. (ROA #116.) On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled 'PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST TO AMEND AND CLARIFY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.' In this document, which appears to be a combined argument to the Court and amended complaint, Plaintiff explicitly states 'Plaintiff also wants to make very clear to Opposing Counsel and this Court that this Response to the Court to Clarify and make this Complaint less 'unintelligible' and 'confusing' is not being filed as an Amended Complaint.' Defendant now requests the Court to dismiss the action because Plaintiff did not file an amend pleading according to the leave this Court granted.

Defendant is correct that according to Plaintiff's own words Plaintiff failed to amend the pleading as permitted by this Court.

It is the rule that when a trial court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the scope of the grant of leave is ordinarily a limited one. It gives the pleader an opportunity to cure the defects in the particular causes of action to which the demurrer was sustained, but that is all. (People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785–786, 57 Cal.Rptr. 227.) 'The plaintiff may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so, unless the new cause of action is within the scope of the order granting leave to amend.' (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 20.) (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.) 'Following an order sustaining a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend, the plaintiff may amend his or her complaint only as authorized by the court's order.' (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Plaintiff was permitted to file an amended pleading, nothing more.

Plaintiff would do himself a service by using his energy to learn some California Civil Procedure, rather Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3093390  64 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LINGENFELTER VS BANK OF ENGLAND [IMAGED]  37-2022-00024459-CU-WT-CTL than cast aspersions on this Court and opposing counsel. It appears Plaintiff did make an effort to clarify his complaint in the document 'PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST TO AMEND AND CLARIFY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT,' but made it clear that it did not qualify as an amended pleading. The Court is unsure why Plaintiff would make the effort to make such clarification but simultaneously fail to file an amend pleading as permitted by this Court. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failures, the Court grants Plaintiff an additional ten (10) days leave to file an amended pleading.

The Court agrees that the case should be heard on the merits if Plaintiff can properly state at least one cause of action, which appears to be the case based on the allegations in 'PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST TO AMEND AND CLARIFY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.' If Plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading within ten (10) days, the Court will very likely grant a subsequent motion by Defendant to dismiss.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3093390  64