Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate
CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0209479 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate: Petitioner, Allen McCloskey, seeks leave to file a Supplemental Verified Petition pursuant to CCP § 473(a)(1) and 464 to add a separate California Public Records Act (CPRA) request submitted on December 23, 2025, and facts pertaining to a fire which occurred on June 12, 2026. Respondents oppose the motion.
CCP § 473(a)(1). “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.” CCP § 473(a)(1).
Petitioner does not seek to add or strike the name of a party, correct a mistake in the name of a party, or correct a mistake in any other regard. CCP § 473(a)(1) also allows the court to grant a party leave to amend any pleading in other particulars “absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party.” Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154. Here, the December and November CPRA requests are two distinctly separate records request. The incorporation of the December CPRA request is prejudicial because the original Petition has already been briefed and it confuses the issues of each separate request.
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?”
Additionally, the motion is also procedurally defective. A motion under CCP § 473(a)(1) must comply with the 4
requirements of CRC 3.1324(b). CRC 3.1324(b) requires the filing of a separate declaration that specifies “(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 supporting declaration fails to address the effect of the amendments, when the facts giving rise to the amendments were discovered, and the reasons the request for amendment was not made earlier. The December 23, 2026, CPRA request was submitted over 6 months ago. No explanation has been provided regarding why leave to add the December CPRA request was not filed sooner.
CCP § 464. “The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental complaint or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.” CCP § 464. While both the December CPRA request and June 12, 2026, fire occurred after the filing of the original Petition, the motion fails to explain how each event is factually material to the November 2025 CRPA request.
The motion is DENIED. Petitioner provided a proposed Order that will be modified to reflect the Court’s ruling.
MEGASTAR FINANCIAL CORP VS. TURNER, ET AL.