Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV37416, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37416    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Briand WMS Esquire, “individually, on behalf of himself, the general public and on behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated, that is, a class of claimants whose rights were violated as were Esquire,” (herein, “Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 30, 2022 against a number of defendants.

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging twenty causes of action.

Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a second amended complaint. The motion is unopposed.[1]

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (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, Ltd. New York Branch (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.)

As an initial matter, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has complied with all of the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. 

A proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached to the motion. However, Plaintiff does not clearly “[s]tate 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).) Plaintiff also does not clearly “[s]tate 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a)(3).) 

In addition, Plaintiff’s supporting declaration does not specify “[t]he effect of the amendment,” “[w]hy the amendment is necessary and proper,” “[w]hen the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered,” or “[t]he reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  February 28, 2024                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court