Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV35730, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 21STCV35730 Hearing Date: January 23, 2023 Dept: 31
LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING
The hearing is CONTINUED to February 1, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to file an updated declaration stating what allegations are being deleted and added to the SAC and the effect and necessity for the proposed amendments.
Background
On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff The Redeemed Christian Church of God-Jesus Embassy Los Angeles filed a complaint against Defendants Swift Petrochemicals, Inc; Mutiu Olatunji Durosinmi-Etti; and Does 1 to 10.
The operative First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for:
1. Breach of Contract/Specific Performance
2. Breach of Contract
3. Promissory Estoppel
4. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
5. Declaratory Relief
6. Constructive Trust
On February 14, 2022, Defendant Swift Petrochemicals, Inc filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against the Redeemed Christian Church.
On May 16, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases 21STCV35730 and 22CMUD00149, with this case (21STCV35730) as the lead case.
On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
On January 13, 2023, Defendants filed opposing papers on January 13, 2023.
LEGAL STANDARD
Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. California courts are required to permit liberal amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice between the parties to an action. (Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 352.)¿ Generally, amendment must be permitted unless there is unwarranted delay in requesting leave to amend or undue prejudice to the opposing party. (Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377.) Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may – of itself—be a valid reason for denial. (Emerald Bay Community Association v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1097.)¿¿¿¿¿
Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)¿
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add a cause of action for fraud. The proposed SAC is attached to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Emmanuel O. Agge as Exhibit 1.
Plaintiff alleges that the fraud cause of action was not brought earlier because Plaintiff lacked sufficient information to state facts to establish a prima facie case for fraud. (Agge Decl. ¶ 7.) Discovery has unveiled facts that allow a pleading for a fraud cause of action. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Plaintiff asserts that the proposed amendments to the SAC arise out of the same facts originally pled and that Defendants will not suffer prejudice in Plaintiff’s delay in adding a fraud cause of action.
Any assertions by Defendants that the SAC is deficient or lacks merit, should be addressed on demurrer or a motion for summary judgment/adjudication.
However, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a). Without any indication as to what allegations are being deleted or added, the Court cannot determine if the facts supporting the fraud cause of action arise out of the same operative facts in the pleading or open a new line of inquiry. (See Estate of Murphy (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311 [denial of leave to amend appropriate when the proposed amendment opened up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation for the delay].)
Accordingly, the Court cannot properly assess if the Defendants will be prejudiced by the proposed pleading. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to explain the effect of the amendment and why the amendment is necessary and proper. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)
The Court CONTINUES the hearing and orders Plaintiff to file an additional declaration showing what allegations are being deleted and added to the SAC and the effect and necessity for the proposed amendments.
Conclusion
The hearing is CONTINUED to February 1, 2023. Plaintiff shall file the required declaration by January 26, 2023. Defendant may file a response by January 30, 2023.
Plaintiff is ordered to file an updated declaration stating what allegations are being deleted and added to the SAC and the effect and necessity for the proposed amendments.
Parties waive notice.