Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC719964, Date: 2022-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC719964    Hearing Date: December 30, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2018, plaintiff Camellia Gharapanianse (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and negligent supervision. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owned the property at 10212 Kalua Dr., in Shadow Hills, California (the “Property”) and that on May 14, 2018, she was injured when she walked towards the street of the Property and unknowingly stepped on a rock/whole floor which caused her to slip and fall.

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) to “(1) substitute the names of two individuals/entities for Does defendants 1-2; (2) add an alter ego legal theory of liability as to all Defendants; and (3) add additional cause of actions based on new facts discovered through formal and information discovery after the original complaint was filed.” (Motion p. 7.)

Defendant has not filed an opposition.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  “Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted.”  (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32.)  “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial . . . this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.’  [Citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown.  [Citation.]”  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1024, 487.) 

          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.   (Cal. 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.324(b).)

III.      DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) to “(1) substitute the names of two individuals/entities for Does defendants 1-2; (2) add an alter ego legal theory of liability as to all Defendants; and (3) add additional cause of actions based on new facts discovered through formal and information discovery after the original complaint was filed.” (Motion p. 7.) However, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1234. Most critically, Plaintiff failed to provide a compliant declaration. Plaintiff’s declaration does not state 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.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a SAC is DENIED without prejudice.

IV.      CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a SAC 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 SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.