Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20VECV00347, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20VECV00347    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: W

PEARLIE KATE MILLER, JR. V. JANE DOE, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing:        March 24, 2023                                             Trial Date:       None set. 

Department:              W                                                                    Case No.:        20VECV00347

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Pearlie Kate Miller

Responding Party:     No opposition

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff Pearlie Kate Miller filed a complaint against Defendant Jane/John Doe asserting causes of action for Defamation, Intrusion into Private Affairs, Civil Extortion (Blackmail), and Revenge Porn. On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff named Jane Doe as Tiffany Warren.

Plaintiff is an investigative journalist/documentary filmmaker. Plaintiff alleges she is the victim of a smear campaign because Defendants do not like what she reports.

On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff now seeks leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint to add two additional causes of action. 

[TENTATIVE] RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Pearlie Kate Miller moves the court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add two new causes of action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”¿ 

“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.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿ The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco¿v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿ 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (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.¿Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), 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.¿ 

The court notes Plaintiff has not compiled with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). However, Plaintiff’s motion includes much of this same information.  Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s motion on its merits.

Plaintiff seeks to add two new claims, each based on Defendant’s smear campaign against Plaintiff for her reporting. Plaintiff seeks to add an intentional inference with contractual relations claim against Defendant Warren when Warren allegedly interfered with a contractual obligation between Plaintiff and Automotive Group aka Lexus of Woodland Hills for employment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Warren sent Lexus of Woodland Hills a scathing e-mail assassinating Plaintiff’s character. Plaintiff seeks to add her intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Defendant’s conduct with Lexus of Woodland Hills. The court finds the amendment proper.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs is directed to file its proposed Second Amended Complaint within 14 days.