Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV11649, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11649    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 28, 2024             TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Mengjiao Gao v. Leon Liliang Sun

CASE NO.:                 20STCV11649           

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Mengjiao Gao

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Leon Liliang Sun

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a breach of contract action that was filed on March 23, 2020.

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Legal Standard

            The Court may, “at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, . . . allow the amendment of any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) A motion to amend a pleading must comply with California Rule of Court 3.1324(b). This rule provides:

(a) Contents of motion

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State 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; and

(3) State 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.

(b) Supporting declaration

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. Rule of Court 3.1324.) This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) 

Contents of Motion

            Plaintiff has included, with the motion, a copy of a proposed second cause of action for fraud. However, the proposed pleading does not include the allegations set forth in the original form pleading filed by Plaintiff on March 23, 2020. Thus, the motion does not comply with Rule 3.1324(a)(1). Moreover, because the proposed pleading deviates from the original Complaint in this manner, the motion does not accurately set forth which amendments are proposed by page, paragraph, and line number as required by Rule 3.1324(a)(2) and (a)(3), notwithstanding the motion’s plain identification of the new cause of action. Plaintiff has therefore failed to comply with Rule 3.1324(a).

Supporting Declaration

The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel in support of the motion is devoid of any detail that would demonstrate compliance with Rule 3.1324(b). Moreover, although the Motion itself explains the effect of the proposed amendment to assert a new cause of action for fraud, as required by Rule 3.1324(b)(1), nothing in Plaintiff’s papers demonstrates why amendment is necessary and proper (Rule 3.1324(b)(2)), when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered (Rule 3.1324(b)(3)), or crucially why amendment has never been sought in the four years this matter has been pending. (Rule 3.1324(b)(4).) Plaintiff has thus failed to comply with Rule 3.1324(b).

In summation, Plaintiff’s meager showing does not demonstrate that leave to amend is proper at this juncture, notwithstanding the strong presumption in favor of permitting amendment.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 28, 2024                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.