BEASLEY vs COMMUNITY LOANS & INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.

25CV158907: BEASLEY vs COMMUNITY LOANS & INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; filed by Monet Beasley (Plaintiff) CRS# 852914207983 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 09/09/2026 Han N. Tran

The Motion for Leave PLAINTIFF MONET BEASLEYS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Monet Beasley on 08/14/2026 is Granted.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Monet Beasley (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 10, 2025 and a First Amended Complaint on February 23, 2026. Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds that additional facts and evidence were developed during the related unlawful detainer action between Plaintiff and Defendant Community Loans & Investments LLC (“Defendant”), which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff on May 11, 2026. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s opportunity to appeal the verdict and subsequent denial of post-trial motions for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict expired on August 10. Plaintiff filed this motion four days later on August 14.

LEGAL STANDARD 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. (Code Civ. Proc. §, 473, subd. (a)(1).)

Motions for leave to amend are also governed by California Rule of Court 3.1324, which requires that any such motion include: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings; (2) statements as to which allegations are proposed to be deleted and added; (3) a supporting declaration stating 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.

DISCUSSION Defendant contends that the motion must be denied because it does not comply with California Rule of Court 3.1324. Defendant claims that the supporting declaration, the Goodell Declaration, does not contain the required information. The court disagrees. The Goodell Declaration explains why each proposed amendment is necessary and proper, explains when the information giving rise to the motion to amend was obtained (largely during the unlawful detainer matter), and why the request for amendment was not made earlier (Plaintiff waited, reasonably, until the time for appeals of the unlawful detainer verdict had expired). (See Goodell 25CV158907: BEASLEY vs COMMUNITY LOANS & INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; filed by Monet Beasley (Plaintiff) CRS# 852914207983 in Department 22 Decl., ¶¶ 11-26.)

While it could be argued that the Goodell Declaration does not contain an explicit statement as to the effect of the amendment, it supplies sufficient information and context from which this can be ascertained. The Goodell Declaration also sets forth paragraph numbers containing proposed amendments and includes redlined versions of the operative FAC and proposed SAC.

Defendant’s second objection is that the SAC includes facts which occurred after Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed. The court is unpersuaded. Defendant appears to be conflating facts occurring after the original complaint was filed and facts discovered after the original complaint was filed. Moreover, to the extent that facts postdating the original complaint are alleged in the proposed SAC, Defendant is incorrect that Code of Civil Procedure section 464 requires a motion for supplemental pleading.

The language of the statute is discretionary: “The plaintiff and defendant, respectively, may be allowed, on motion, to make a supplemental claim or answer, alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint or answer.” Plaintiff also cites case law indicating that courts do not consider a CCP 464 motion to be mandatory. (Kim v. The True Church Members of Holy Hill Community Church (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1450 [“[s]ection 464 permits, but does not require, a party to file a supplemental pleading in order to assert a new claim or defense.”] Additionally, to the extent that post-complaint facts are being alleged, they appear to relate to the original foreclosure proceeding giving rise to this case and the unlawful detainer action.

For the foregoing reasons and in light of the courts’ policy of liberally allowing amendments to pleadings absent unreasonable delay or prejudice to other parties, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to separately file the proposed SAC within five court days after service of this order. It will not be deemed filed by way of this order.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV158907: BEASLEY vs COMMUNITY LOANS & INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; filed by Monet Beasley (Plaintiff) CRS# 852914207983 in Department 22 parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.