MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JUNE 29, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 8 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 3 25-CIV-04686 STEPHANIE LIM VS. ELEXUM, ET AL
STEPHANIE LIM CHRIS QUATTROCIOCCHE ELEXUM THOMAS J. WALSH
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
Before the Court is Plaintiff Stephanie Lim’s unopposed motion for an order granting leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Initially, the Court observes that Plaintiff’s notice of hearing provides the improper address for the hearing because the matter was reassigned to the Honorable David A. Silberman, Department 11, on May 11, 2026. Department 11 is not located in Redwood City as the notice states, but instead at the Central Branch Courthouse, Courtroom G, at 800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, CA 94401. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 (the Notice “must specify” the location of the hearing). While it remained Plaintiff’s obligation to correct the notice, it is both understandable and harmless and the error is waived.
Next, the Court notes Plaintiff’s motion includes three exhibits, but they are not properly bookmarked. That is, “electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4); see also San Mateo County Superior Court, L.R. 3.3 (“Failure to bookmark exhibits to electronically filed documents may result in rejection of the party’s e-filing by the Clerk of the Court or in continuance of the hearing by the Court on the related motion.”).
Additionally, the motion contains two Exhibit A’s, both the amended complaint and what appears to be one of two exhibits to the complaint (although oddly neither are referenced in the complaint). For this reason, electronic bookmarking is especially useful to avoid either uneconomic use of the Court’s time in the best case, or inaccuracy at the worst.
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?”
In any event, the instant motion requests leave to eliminate the fourth cause of action for breach of contract raised in plaintiff’s complaint filed June 20, 2025. The motion is unopposed and plaintiff asserts that Defendant Elexum has no objection to the filing of the attached First Amended Complaint (the Court noted that she is silent as to Apple and fails to provide any admissible evidence in support of the assertion, regardless).
Nevertheless, motions for leave to amend the pleadings are left to the sound discretion of the trial court judge. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Code Civ. Proc. § 473 (a)(1); Code Civ. Proc. § 576. Under code section 576 a “judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” McMillin v. Eare (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 893, 909 (italics in original omitted).
Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the FAC within 10 days of the date of this Order.
JUNE 29, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 9 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.