JASON DEWITT VS. JACINTO JOSE VALDOVINO ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Wednesday July 2, 2025, line 3, DEFENDANT JACINTO VALDOVINO #AM3654 **PROVIDE ACCESS** Motion For Leave To File First Amended Cross-Complaint (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)

The motion for leave to file a first amended cross-complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Cross-claimant Jacinto Jose Valdovino seeks to file a first amended cross complaint to (1) allege a malicious prosecution claim against Jason Dewitt, and (2) to attach a verification and exhibits, and correct typographical errors.

Leave to allege a malicious prosecution claim in an amended complaint is denied on a ground not raised by either party. "Matters which occur after the filing of a complaint may not be alleged by amendment to the complaint, but must be brought into the action by means of a supplemental complaint." (Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders, Ltd. (1991) 23 Cal.App.4th 414, 426 [citing CCP 464].) The cross complaint was filed on March 25, 2024. Any amendment would relate back to that date.

One element of a malicious prosecution claim is that the prior action was "was pursued to a legal termination favorable to the" malicious prosecution plaintiff. (Nunez v. Pennisi (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 861, 872-873 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) That element is not alleged to have occurred, and thus Valdovino's claim did not accrue, until after March 25, 2024. (The court takes judicial notice of the papers on file in this case; the court dismissed Dewitt's complaint on February 28, 2025.) Thus, an amended complaint is not the proper vehicle to raise a malicious prosecution claim. A supplemental complaint is a separate kind of filing and leave to file it may be sought by noticed motion.

Valdovino's motion also seeks to attach a verification and exhibits, and correct typos. Valdovino explains that he has limited access to a law library and exhibits. Dewitt opposes on the grounds of futility, contending that res judicata bars all of Valdovino's claims because Valdovino previously prevailed in a small claims action on the same set of facts. The court grants leave to amend to make the ministerial corrections Valdovino seeks. The res judicata arguments may or may not have merit; the court does not decide them here. But the amendment the court gives Valdovino leave to file does no more than restate what is already at issue in this case.