Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)  “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….”   (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Ibid.) Finally, “[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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b), emphasis added.)

Plaintiff attaches to the motion a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not appear to specify “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,” or “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…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(2)-(3).) It is unclear to the Court from Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration what specific proposed amendments to the Complaint Plaintiff seeks to make. 

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel states in his declaration in support of the motion that “[t]he Complaint in this case was filed on 10/24/2022. After filing the Complaint, I found out that Defendant, Angeles Contractor, Inc. recorded Bond to Release Mechanic’s Lien on 10/20/2022.” (Ukeje Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[b]ased on this recordation, Plaintiff is required to amend the Complaint to claim on the Bond to Release Mechanic’s Lien and to add the surety of said bond, Western Surety Company as a defendant in this case.” (Ukeje Decl., ¶ 5.)

However, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of the motion does clearly not discuss “[t]he effect of the amendment,” “[w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper,” or “[t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).) As set forth above, the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b) are mandatory.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.  

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  November 17, 2023                        ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court