Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01266291, Date: 2022-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Heather Brinson moves the court for an order granting leave to file a Complaint.

Plaintiff cites to Code of Civ. Proc. §464 as the enabling authority for the relief requested.

Code of Civ. Proc. §464(a) provides, in relevant part, the “plaintiff… may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint…, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint….”

Notably, the function of the supplemental complaint is to bring to the notice of the court and the opposite party things which occurred after the commencement of the action, and which do or may affect the rights asserted and the relief asked in the action as originally instituted. [Kamei v. Kumamoto (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 381.]

Additionally, in bringing a motion for leave, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and 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; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. [Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).]

In this instance, while not abundantly clear, it appears Plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental complaint to plead allegations of procedural and substantive unconscionability in entering into a contract with Defendant in 2017. However, Plaintiff pleaded both procedural and substantive unconscionability in the Amended Petition filed on July 29, 2022. (See ROA 45, Petition ¶¶1,2.)

Therefore, it does not appear Plaintiff is seeking to add any new facts which have occurred since the filing of the Amended Petition.

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion falls short of the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). Plaintiff declares the facts giving rise to the necessity for leave are as follows, “on or about August 8, 2022, Plaintiff, Petitioner learned that Defendant, Respondent had opposed her Ex Parte Application. Imbedded within their argument was the implication that our case was not simply an unlawful detainer action. With the realization that our case consisted of two distinct components, and with the fast-approaching deadlines for filing and serving moving papers, Plaintiff, Petitioner submits her Motion for Leave to File a First Complaint of Contract.” [Decl. of Heather Brinson¶3.] However, Plaintiff’s declaration fails to establish why pleading unconscionability is necessary and proper.

Additionally, while Plaintiff’s supplemental complaint pleads procedural and substantive unconscionability, which are defenses to the enforcement of a contract, Plaintiff does not appear to plead any causes of action in connection with those defenses.

Finally, the issue may be moot, as Defense counsel declares a jury trial was held in the unlawful detainer action which entered verdict in favor of The Irvine Company LLC against Heather Brinson for possession of the premises. [See Declaration of Richard Sontag¶2.]

As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a supplemental complaint without prejudice.

Defendant to give notice.