BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Pro Per Plaintiff Thomas Bates’ (“Plaintiff”) motion “to amend third complaint without prejudice, motion to stay proceedings and waive 45 day time limit to file motion compel until substitution of attorney” is DENIED.

Plaintiff appears to request that the Court “renew” his motion to amend the third amended complaint (“3AC”). The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous request for leave to amend the 3AC on January 10, 2024. Plaintiff also appears to request that the Court stay the proceedings until Plaintiff is able to obtain counsel and to extend his time to file a motion to compel discovery. Defendant Nationwide Investment Advisers, LLC (“Defendant”) opposes the motion.

First, with respect to Plaintiff’s request to “renew” his motion for leave to amend his third amended complaint, as Defendants correctly argue in opposition, Plaintiff has failed to comply

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 07/02/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Renew Request to Amend Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; 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 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. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Further, a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: the effect of the amendment; why the amendment is necessary and proper; when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).) Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1324. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is again DENIED without prejudice.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s January 10, 2024 order, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for failure to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b), which requires Plaintiff to show “by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” Plaintiff’s declaration does not include any of the information required by this provision. Thus, the request is denied for this reason as well.

Second, Plaintiff’s request for a stay of proceedings until he obtains legal counsel is also DENIED. Plaintiff cites California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 in support of his request. However, Rule 3.1332 governs motions or applications for continuance of trial and is therefore inapplicable. Plaintiff also cite three cases that concern continuances of trials or hearings, which are also inapplicable to Plaintiff’s request for a stay. Plaintiff does not cite any relevant legal authority in support of his request to stay the matter and does not articulate any facts that would suggest there is good cause to stay the matter. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a stay. (See Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 [“[The court] may disregard legal arguments that are not supported by citations to legal authority.”)

Finally, Plaintiff’s request to “waive 45 day time limit” to file a motion compel is DENIED. The 45-day time limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, subdivision (c), 2031.310, subdivision (c), and section 2033.290, subdivision (c) is jurisdictional and the Court lacks authority to extend the deadline. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [“the 45-day limitation is . . . ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them”].) Because the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s requested relief, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 07/02/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Renew Request to Amend Third Amended Complaint in Department 54

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)