Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV00955, Date: 2024-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00955, Date: 2024-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00955 Hearing Date: December 30, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 30, 2024

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00955

CASE NAME: Larry Turner v. Elite Group Enterprise, LLC, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Larry Turner

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Elite Group Enterprise, LLC; David Joseph Tapia (No Opposition)

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

¿¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED, without prejudice. There is no supporting declaration to demonstrate compliance with Rule of Court 3.1324,

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff, Larry Turner (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Elite Group Enterprises and EMA Risk Services. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; (2) General Negligence; and (3) Intentional Tort.

Now, Plaintiff files a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds that since the filing of the FAC, Plaintiff’s counsel states to have uncovered crucial mistakes in the FAC that service of summons and complaint to both Defendants would be incomplete. Plaintiff also claims to be moving on the grounds Plaintiff seeks to amend the pleading to add causes of action and legal theories based on uncovered evidence.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and file Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). To date, no opposition brief has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also 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 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. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff states that he seeks to amend the pleading as follows: (1) add Does 1 to 20; (2) Correct mistake on item number 5, a. Defendant Elite Group Enterprises, LLC to (5) Other: a limited liability company; (3) Correct mistake on item number 5, b. remove EMA Risk Services, and remove (5) other: Insurance Company; (4) Add item number 6, a. 1 to 10, inclusive, and b. 11 to 20, inclusive; (5) Correct mistake on item number 14, a. (2) remove punitive damages; (6) Add item number 15, and MV-2 (b-f); and GN-1; (7) Add attachments One (1) Cause of Action-Motor Vehicle and Two (2) Cause of Action-General Negligence to Complaint that were not previously attached to the original complaint.

Plaintiff explains that since filing the FAC, he has uncovered crucial mistakes in the FAC that service of summons and complaint to both Defendants would be incomplete. Further, Plaintiff has attempted personal service of the original summons and complaint on Defendant, David Joseph Tapia, but has not been successful. Plaintiff also seeks to amend the complaint to add causes of action and legal theories based on the above evidence. Plaintiff confirms that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the granting of this motion, and that the amendments are not barred by the statute of limitations.

The court DENIES this motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Although Plaintiff has included specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added as well as providing a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, Plaintiff has failed to include a declaration stating the effect, necessity, and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery, and reason for delay. The Court acknowledges that the Notice attached to the Plaintiff’s moving papers includes, in the caption, that the moving papers include a Declaration of Catalina L. Gracia, however, there is no such declaration included. As such, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File his Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, without prejudice.