Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20VECV01264, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20VECV01264    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Plaintiff Shant Aram Dashjian’s Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Verified Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Introduction

            Plaintiff Shant Aram Dashjian (Plaintiff) moved for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed against Defendants Steve Kessedjian, individually and as Trustee of The 4847 La Montana Circle, Tarzana CA 91356 Family Trust et al. (Defendants.)

            Procedure

            Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ Opposition was untimely served.  The Proof of Service showed that the Opposition was filed and served via U.S. Mail and E-Mail on November 28, 2022.  Nine court days prior to this hearing date is November 28, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1005(b).)  The Opposition was timely filed.  Plaintiff argued untimely service based upon Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4)(B) – extension of service by two court days.  However, Plaintiff misconstrues the statute.  The extension of service “applies in the absence of a specific exception provided by any other statute.”  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1010.6(a)(4)(C).)  An Opposition need only be served “at least nine court days” prior to the hearing date.  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1005(b).)  Because Defendants served the Opposition on the ninth day prior to the hearing date, the Opposition was timely served.  Plaintiff’s untimeliness objection is not persuasive.

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must state the allegations being deleted and added.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(2)&(3).)  Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement by failing to state that paragraphs 8 and 12 in the First Amended Verified Complaint (FAVC) were deleted and a new paragraph 12 is being added in the Second Amended Verified Complaint (SAVC.)  Further, Plaintiff failed to state that FAVC par. 13 was deleted and replaced with new allegations in SAVC par. 13.  It is further noted that Plaintiff failed to state that he is adding two new causes of action – professional negligence and violations of California Government Code section 8214.1 and Civil Code section 1185.  (See Proposed SAVC’s fifth and eighth causes of action.)  Without a complete statement of allegations being deleted and added, the Court is at a loss to determine the changes Plaintiff is making in the Proposed SAVC.  Plaintiff’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 presents grounds to deny the motion.

The motion for leave to amend is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the motion is procedurally defective.