Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV08918, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08918    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On April 9, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher Ray (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lany Entertainment, LLC, Gregori Martin a/k/a Gregorio Barbieri, Kristos Andrews, and Celeste Fianna a/k/a Celeste Andrew-Drum.

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Verified Complaint on August 19, 2024, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, and (3) declaratory relief to establish alter ego liability and damages.

Plaintiff now moves for an order “to amend the Complaint based on stipulation of the Parties filed simultaneously hereto.” The motion is unopposed.

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.)

As set forth above, Plaintiff moves “for an order to amend the Complaint based on stipulation of the Parties filed simultaneously hereto.” (Mot. at p. 1:20-21.) However, Plaintiff does not appear to cite to legal authority providing for such a motion.

The Court notes that a motion to amend a pleading before trial must comply with certain requirements. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.) Specifically, 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) In addition, 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).) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend does not comply with these requirements. Moreover, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to add a party via a Doe Amendment.  However, the Does were dismissed on October 7, 2024.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion “for an order to amend the Complaint” is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order.  

DATED:  March 5, 2025                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court