Bilaal Salaam v. Jada Pinkett Smith
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
Motion. (07/21/25 Minute Order; Motion.) The court finds no good cause to consider the untimely Motion.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is denied as untimely. Dated: August 19, 2026 _______- ___________________________ Hon. Eric Harmon Judge of the Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTHWEST DISTRICT | Bilaal Salaam, Plaintiff. v. Jada Pinkett Smith, Defendant. | Case Number Department 25VECV06407 107 | COURT'S [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint | [THE FOLLOWING IS A TENTATIVE RULING IN THE ABOVE CASE]: Deny Deny
I. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2025, Plaintiff Bilaal Salaam aka Brother Bilaal ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendant Jada Pinkett Smith ("Defendant") alleging three causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On February 5, 2025, Defendant filed a special motion to strike under CCP section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) (the "Anti-SLAPP Motion").
On April 13, 2026, the court denied the Anti-SLAPP Motion, in part, and granted it, in part. (04/13/26 Minute Order p. 17.)
On May 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file first amended complaint (the "Motion").
On August 6, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition.
On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a notice of filing of revised proposed first amended complaint.
II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for an order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. (Motion p. 2.)
On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a notice of filing of revised proposed first amended complaint, which states the attached proposed first amended complaint "supersedes, for purposes of the pending motion, all previously submitted versions of Plaintiff's proposed First Amended Complaint." (Notice of Filing of Revised Proposed First Amended Complaint p. 2.)
Plaintiff no longer appears to desire to file the proposed first amended complaint that is attached to the Motion. Thus, the court denies Plaintiff's request for leave to file the first amended complaint that is attached to the Motion.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) requires motions to be filed and served at least 16 court days before the set hearing.
Plaintiff filed the notice of filing of revised proposed first amended complaint only nine court days before the set hearing date.
Plaintiff also filed the notice of filing of revised first amended complaint after Defendant filed the opposition. Thus, Defendant has had no opportunity to respond to the notice of filing of revised proposed first amended complaint.
Plaintiff gave Defendant insufficient notice and no opportunity to respond to the proposed first amended complaint that is attached to the notice of filing of revised proposed first amended complaint. Thus, the court denies Plaintiff's request for leave to file the first amended complaint that is attached to the notice of filing of revised proposed first amended complaint.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is denied. Dated: August 19, 2026 _______- ___________________________ Hon. Eric Harmon Judge of the Superior Court |
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”