| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend Complaint
Alexander Guadalupe Venegas, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to Amend Complaint
Hearing Date: May 15, 2026
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) is CONTINUED to June 5, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 14. This continuance allows them to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 (“Rule 3.1324”). It also allows Defendants to state and substantiate the cost amount they are seeking pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(2) (“Section 473”).
The court may, at its discretion, after notice to the opposing party, allow an amendment to any pleading on any just terms. [Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1).] The motion must include a copy of the proposed pleading and specify which allegations are to be deleted or added. [Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324, subd. (a).] It must also be supported by a declaration that explains: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts prompting the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) why the request for amendment was not made earlier. [Id. at subd. (b).]
Plaintiffs’ motion did not fully adhere to Rule 3.1324. First, it failed to meet subdivision (a) because they did not specify (1) which allegations from the previous pleading are to be deleted, including their exact location by page, paragraph, and line; and (2) which allegations are to be added, also with specific location details. Second, the declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel lacks the necessary details required under subdivision (b). Merely providing some narrative in the motion and reply memorandum is insufficient.
The Court notes that the proposed 4AC lists an “Alejandra Veronica Garcia” as a plaintiff. It is unclear whether this is a new plaintiff or simply an incorrect reference to the plaintiff “Angelica Veronica Garcia.” There also seems to be a new Third Cause of Action in the 4AC for wrongful death. There was no such cause of action before, only the checked box under Item 12 of the form complaint concerning wrongful death, but no separate “cause of action.”
Defendants also seek costs under Section 473, but neither specified an amount nor provided evidence to support such a claim. [See Opp. at 8.]
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?”
Plaintiffs must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the issues raised in this Tentative Ruling by May 22, 2026. Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ supplemental filing, which will also address their request for Section 473 costs, must be filed and served by May 29.
Plaintiffs shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING
This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.
2