Motion for leave to file second amended complaint
incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135 [agreeing that “demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored”].) They are strictly construed “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Defendants’ memorandum reflects a detailed understanding of the claim.
Defendants shall give notice. 4 Li vs. Shen The court GRANTS Plaintiff Hong Li’s motion for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint.
Standard on Motions for Leave to Amend
Civil Procedure Code Section 473(a)(1) provides that “[t]he court may . . . in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading . . . .” The court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)
Procedural Requirements
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; and (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted/added, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted/additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also be supported by a 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. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(b).)
Here, Plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 3.1324. (See Deng Decl. ¶¶ 2-8, Exs. A-B.)
Proposed SAC
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?”
The Proposed SAC adds Decedent’s two wrongful death heirs as Proposed Plaintiffs, deletes reference to dismissed defendants; and deletes dismissed causes of action. Plaintiff Li submits sufficient evidence to show the proposed plaintiffs consent to being joined as party plaintiffs. (See Deng Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)
The court finds Plaintiff’s proposed SAC promotes resolution of the full dispute between the parties, complies with the relevant compulsory joinder statutes, and clarifies the remaining claims and defendants.
No later than five (5) court days from the hearing, Plaintiff Li shall file and serve the Proposed SAC, which is attached as Exhibit A to the Deng Declaration.
Clerk is ordered to give notice. 5 Provenzano The Court GRANTS Plaintiff ONM Environmental, Inc.’s motions to vs. Oremor Automotive compel verified responses from Defendants Lithia Motors, Inc. dba Group, LLC Orange Coast Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat’s and FCA US LLC dba Stellantis North America to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff ONM Environmental, Inc.’s motion to deem Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted by Defendants Lithia Motors, Inc. dba Orange Coast Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat’s and FCA US LLC dba Stellantis North America.
A party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery at any time “[i]f a party to whom [discovery requests] are directed fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b).) For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) provides that where a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
By failing to serve timely responses, the responding party waives any objection to the written discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a), 2033.280(a).)
Here, the evidence establishes that Defendants failed to respond to the duly served discovery and therefore waived all objections. (See Chavos Decl. ¶¶ 3-8, Exs. 1-2.) There is no indication that Defendants served substantially compliant responses to the Requests for Admission before the hearing.
15