Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV17459, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17459    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Bahram Rasizadeh field this action against Defendant Schuster Real Estate Co., Ltd.  On July 6, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.  No oppositions were filed.

The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments and must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted or added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the allegations are located.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)  The motion shall also be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)  “‘[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.’” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486, quoting Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939-940.)

Plaintiff provides a copy of the proposed amended complaint.  (Naudi Decl., Ex. A.)  Plaintiff does not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added and where the allegations are located.  Plaintiff states only that the amendments are “updated only to correct ongoing misconduct, typographical errors (including Schuster Land Corporation which was sued in error as ‘SCHUSTER REAL ESTATE CO., LTD dba SCHUSTER LAND CORPORATION[’]) and add causes of action.”  (Motion at p. 1.)  Counsel’s declaration does not attest to the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  Instead, counsel states that upon reviewing the Complaint (which was filed eleven months ago), “I determined a certain cause of action had been omitted, which omission would prejudice Plaintiffs if not corrected.”  (Naudi Decl. ¶ 2.)  The proposed amended complaint actually includes two new causes of action, not one, and there is no explanation for their inclusion now.

Due to the motion’s deficiencies, the Court cannot determine whether the proposed amendment is proper, will enlarge the issues in this case, or will prejudice Defendant before the December 11, 2023 trial date.  The Court will not conduct a line-by-line review to identify the proposed amendments when Plaintiff was obligated to identify each change.  (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 20th day of April 2023