Motion for leave to file first amended complaint
(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.
California courts generally allow great liberality, at all stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.)
Plaintiff submitted a declaration declaring as follows: The proposed First Amended Complaint corrects the identity of the true landlord entity, adds indispensable parties, clarifies agency relationships, and asserts additional claims and factual allegations based on newly discovered documentary evidence. (Decl. of Dickson, ¶ 2).
Since the filing of the original complaint, Plaintiff obtained additional documents and information that clarify the roles of Defendants and reveal new facts, including, for example, emails from Defendants showing their participation in billing practices CAM charges, and a fully executed commercial lease. (Decl. of Dickson, ¶¶ 2-12). The documentary evidence was not reasonably available to him at the time of filing the original complaint. (Decl. of Dickson, ¶ 5).
Plaintiff attached a copy of the proposed first amended complaint to the initial motion filed on 9/16/25, however, there is no caption page. (See ROA 43). Defendants did not oppose the motion and did not contend that they would be prejudiced by leave to amend.
The court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1324.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion, and ORDERS Plaintiff to separately file the first amended complaint that was attached to the motion (ROA 43), but with a compliant caption page. Plaintiff shall file this first amended complaint within 10 days.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff shall give notice.
Case Management Conference
The Case Management Conference is continued to October 15, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in this department.
Plaintiff to give notice.
5 Lam v. Bui Defendants Hong Bui and Yen Hai Bui’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
The Court finds Defendants have not presented any evidence they met and conferred prior to filing the Motion. However, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the Motion on its merits.
Defendants’ Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED as to the final judgment, complaint, and register of actions, in case no. 2023- 01303811. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [the Court may take judicial notice of “records of ... any court of this state”].)
Standard for Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
A defendant may move for judgment on either the entire complaint, or as to any of the causes of action, on the ground that “[t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subds. (c)(1)(B)(ii), (c)(2)(A).)
“ ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings serves the function of a demurrer, challenging only defects on the face of the complaint.’ [Citation.] As with a demurrer, ‘[t]he grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the complaint or from a matter of which the court may take judicial notice.’ [Citations.]” (Eckler v. Neutrogena (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 433, 439; Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).) “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Sykora v. State Dept. of State Hospitals (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534; Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1063.)
A trial court’s determination of a motion for judgment on the pleadings accepts as true the pleading’s factual allegations, and it gives them a liberal construction. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516; see Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 181, 190-191 [while allegations of a complaint must be accepted as true for purposes of a demurrer, the facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint will also be accepted as true, and, if contrary to the allegations in the pleading, will be given precedence].)
Although the trial court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, it “does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219.)
The Present Claims Are Not Barred by Claim or Issue Preclusion
18