Albert vs. Tyler Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiffs Lenore Albert, et al.’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (2AC) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The currently operative pleading in this matter is the 2AC filed in federal court prior to remand. (ROA 122, Ex. E.)

The federal court’s remand order declined to exercise jurisdiction over the fifth through seventh causes of action on Rooker-Feldman grounds. The federal court declined to reach the merits of those causes of action. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. As a result, the merits challenges raised by Defendants State Bar of California, et al. and Tyler Technologies, Inc. remain unresolved, as does the State Bar Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

While leave to amend should be liberally granted, Plaintiffs may no longer amend as a matter of right. The Court believes Defendants’ merits challenges, and the State Bar Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, should be resolved before deciding whether further amendment is proper. As Magistrate Judge McCormick noted in his report and recommendation, the current pleading is Plaintiffs’ third attempt in this case to bring viable claims. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking leave to amend following resolution of the pleadings challenges not addressed in federal court.

At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss how these pleadings challenges will proceed.

In addition, to ensure a proper record of proceedings, Plaintiffs are ordered to separately file by May 26, 2026 the 2AC previously filed in federal court. To avoid any confusion, in the event the Court allows a further amended complaint, it shall be labeled as the Third Amended Complaint.